Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BARCLAYS BANK INTERNATIONAL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Housing

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many firms have made representations to local Department of Employment offices seeking advice on housing for incoming workers.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): No records of the kind of representations referred to by the hon. Member are kept.

Mr. Steel: Will the Minister look at this matter, particularly in Scotland, where we have the advantage of the Government housing agency—the SSHA—to see whether the local offices of the Department of Employment can give more generous forecasts of housing requirements, as present experience is that they stick to very conservative estimates, with the result that there is no pool of housing available for incoming workers?

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned this before. We welcome the priority given to housing in Scotland. In Scotland, all Departments with an interest are represented on the Interdepartmental Committee on Housing for Industry which is a committee of the Economic Planning Board for Scotland.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will also be happy to listen to representations which the hon. Member makes.

Mexborough and Wombwell

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many males, females, boys and girls, respectively, have registered as unemployed for the whole of the past six months at the Mexborough and Wombwell employment exchanges.

Mr. John Fraser: On 8th April, 698 males and 78 females in Mexborough and Wombwell had been unemployed for over 26 weeks. Separate figures for boys and girls are not available for this date.

Mr. Wainwright: Does my hon. Friend agree that the unemployment rate in the Mexborough and Wombwell district is more than twice the national average? Is he aware that because of credit restrictions the firm of Hattersley Bros., in Swinton, near Mexborough, is going on short time? Will my hon. Friend, through his right hon. Friends, ensure that the credit facilities which we have had until recently are brought back so that there can again be full-time working? Will my hon. Friend confirm that credit restrictions on central heating in homes are going backwards and not forwards?

Mr. Fraser: I agree with my hon. Friend that unemployment in his district is too high. The question of credit restrictions is a matter not for my Department but for the Treasury. I am happy to say that there is a good prospect of jobs arising from industrial development certificates granted during the last year. Training facilities are being provided at Doncaster in addition to those already existing at Sheffield and Wakefield.

Social Contract

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress he has made in creating a social contract with the trade unions.

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with the TUC about incomes policy.

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what recent


discussions he has had with the TUC on the creation of a social contract; and if he will report what progress has been made.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): Good progress is being made in these discussions with the TUC, and I would particularly direct attention to the statement issued by the General Secretary, Mr. Len Murray, on 11th April.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that millions of trade unionists appreciate how busy he has been chopping down the dead wood of the Industrial Relations Act? When will he find time to create the new conciliation and arbitration machinery, and will he assure the House that the legal profession will have no part in it?

Mr. Foot: I assure my hon. Friend that we are seeking to proceed as fast as possible with the establishment of the conciliation and arbitration service. We would have included it in the repeal Bill if it had not been for the fact that it would have made that Bill hopelessly long. That means that we shall have to proceed with the work partly on an administrative basis, but we hope that the parts of the proposals that require statutory form will figure in the second Bill—the Employment Protection Bill—which we shall introduce in the autumn. In the meantime, I assure my hon. Friend that we are proceeding to set up this service as fast as we can and to have the necessary consultations. We want to see it in good working order very soon.

Mr. McCrindle: Is it the Government's intention that the social contract should continue only during the present high rate of inflation, or is it rather intended that it should be a permanently qualifying factor on the Government's policy? If the latter is the case, does not the Secretary of State agree that he is elevating the trade unions to a level comparable to the monarchy and Parliament, and does he expect to introduce a constitutional amendment Bill to this effect?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman should not be so disgruntled at the progress we are making in establishing much better relations between the Government and the unions. It is one of the essen-

tial parts of restoring the economy of the country generally and getting it on a better basis. We think that this social contract will go on not merely for a short period of crisis but for many years ahead under the auspices of this Government or their successors.

Mr. Duffy: I thank my right hon. Friend for the impressive manner in which he is giving content, substance and credibility to the social contract. In the grant of tax relief to unions against the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, is he aware that there is some analogy with retrospective action in the Finance Bill to deal with a tax measure that has turned out differently from what was intended?

Mr. Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that when our proposals are properly understood they will be universally welcomed by everybody of good will.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does the Secretary of State agree that in the last few weeks he has been engaged in providing concessions to the trade unions, in terms of policy and money, on a most massive scale? Has he noticed that at least one or two unions have indicated that after a short time they will be coming back for more and more? Where will the social contract be then, and what will he do about incomes policy when that situation arises?

Mr. Foot: I wish that certain Conservative Members—I am not, of course, referring to the Opposition Front Bench —would cheer up on these matters. We have improving industrial relations, and I thought that that was what the country wanted. It is certainly what we on the Labour benches want, and I thought that there were some Conservatives who wanted to see improving relations with the unions. We are carrying out what, before the election, we said we would do, and I do not think anybody should complain about that.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Will my right hon. Friend use his best efforts to persuade a certain union to take no action whatever, whether by strike or otherwise, which will postpone by even one day the new increases which the old-age pensioners are to receive?

Mr. Foot: We understand the difficulties, and I assure my hon. Friend that we are inquiring into them. We are discussing the matter and seeking to overcome the problem.

May Day

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will initiate discussions with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry with the aim of making May Day a national holiday.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): We are prepared to consider any proposals on public holidays in our discussions with the TUC and CBI on voluntary arrangements to replace the present statutory pay controls.

Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is one of the first progressive steps that have been taken by the new Portuguese Government? Would not this step be welcomed by millions of working people, and strengthen once again the natural and healthy political and social contract which always exists between the trade unions and the Labour movement?

Mr. Booth: While I am always ready to welcome any advances made by trade unionists in any part of the world, and particularly by the working people of Portugal at this time, I hope that I shall not be thought to be chauvinistic if I say that anything that my Department can do so as not to lag behind any other workers will be done as quickly as possible.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: If we are to have another day's holiday at this time of the year instead of having a sectionally emotional day, should we not have a non-sectional extra day, such as Saint George's day?

Mr. Booth: May Day may be thought to be a day of sectional interest, but it is one of the biggest sectional interests that exist in the country. Therefore, it is a day for which we have a special regard.

Engineering Industry

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a

statement on the current industrial action in the engineering industry.

Mr. Michael Foot: As a result of the agreement reached between the Engineering Employers Federation and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions on 27th April the industry has returned to normal working.

Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an important component sector of the engineering industry is the motor industry. The House appreciates that he has shown a charitable fraternity to Mr. Hugh Scanlon, but will he match that by an unstinted chivalry in joining my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and myself in congratulating Mrs. Carol Miller on the work she is doing to facilitate industrial peace at the Cowley motor works?

Mr. Foot: That is a quite different question from the one tabled by the hon. Gentleman. I think that he has misunderstood the nature of the settlement reached in the engineering industry, where it was necessary to suggest to both sides —not merely to one side—how a settlement could be reached. We are always willing to make suggestions to both sides, whether in the engineering industry or in any of the other cases mentioned by the hon. Member.

Mr. Whitelaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman now be chivalrous to the lady mentioned?

Mr. Foot: It is not a question of being chivalrous, for I am always eager to be that. It is a question of getting the facts straight.

Industrial Relations Act

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total cost of administering the Industrial Relations Act; and how many people are currently employed in its operation.

Mr. Booth: Over the 12-months period up to 1st April 1974 the cost was approximately £2,071,000. At that date about 320 people were engaged in the operation of the Act

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Industrial Relations Act has been a remarkable piece of House of Commons history, since it was introduced


with a view to settling disputes and yet probably has cost this country several hundred million pounds in disputes which have arisen out of its provisions? Now that that Act is at the end of its tether, does he not also agree that we are witnessing not merely some members of the CBI coming out in favour of removing that legislation from the Statute Book but back-bench Tories protesting about a pittance of £10 million while, at the same time, the Conservative Front Bench wants to forget all about it?

Mr. Booth: The results of the Act have been most remarkable, in the light of the high claims made for it when it was introduced as a Bill. The figure given in my original reply took no account of the extra costs attributable to disputes over the Act. No fewer than 840,000 workers have been involved in stoppages resulting from the operation of the Act, whilst 1·6 million workers took part in the TUC's day of protest against the legislation, and the TGWU and the AUEW have together already lost £190,000 in fines and other costs incurred by them.

Sir P. Bryan: Has not the vast mass of this work been carried out by tribunals administering cases of unjust dismissal—15,000 of them?

Mr. Booth: Much work has been done by the tribunals. We had this very much in mind in considering our repeal Bill. We propose to re-enact the unfair dismissal provisions, with considerable improvements. If the money spent since 1971 in connection with that Act had, instead, been spent on improving conciliation and arbitration procedures, we should be in a much better position than we are now.

Mr. Spriggs: Will my hon. Friend consider the costs incurred by the trade union movement as a whole—particularly by the trade union to which I belong, the National Union of Railwaymen—which has had to fork out many hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal costs as a result of the Industrial Relations Act? Will he examine the situation to see what reimbursement can be made to those trade unions?

Mr. Booth: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has demonstrated to the House that he is not unsympathetic to any proposals for reim-

bursement so far as that is possible, but it is only fair to point out that we cannot reimburse the total adverse costs and undo all the adverse effects of that piece of legislation.

Mr. Marten: Will the Government say whether they believe that the CBI represents British industry?

Mr. Booth: It is not for the Government to say how far the CBI is representative of its membership, any more than it is for the Government to say how far the TUC is representative of its membership. In fact, we conduct discussions with both bodies respecting the extent to which they have a rôle to play.

Mr. Whitelaw: I hope that the Government will ensure that the interests of the staff of the CIR will be properly cared for. This is a serious point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to give some assurance about the future position of the staff.

Mr. Booth: I hope that there is no suggestion that we have not considered this a serious point. We are looking very carefully at the effect that our proposed change in the legislation will have on the staff involved.

Mr. Hayhoe: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends to retain the code of practice associated with the Industrial Relations Act, 1971.

Mr. Booth: No. The Bill which my right hon. Friend is introducing today provides for the repeal of the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act relating to the code.

Mr. Hayhoe: Surely the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are aware that this code has been very widely welcomed and seen as a useful and valuable contribution to industrial relations generally. Do they agree that it seems wrong now to throw away that valuable contribution merely because it is linked with the Industrial Relations Act?

Mr. Booth: I take the view that the 1971 Act and everything associated with it must go at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Hayhoe: Unfair dismissals?

Mr. Booth: I have indicated already that we regard the unfair dismissals provision as a very valuable one, which we shall seek to improve with the repeal Bill. But that is an exception to the general view that we take about the 1971 Act. The repeal Bill includes certain essential provisions about legal immunities for workers in unions. But our substantial proposals for legislation to replace the Act must await the Employment Protection Bill. We can consider the code of practice idea at that stage. The form that it might take will need closer examination.

Sir P. Bryan: The code of practice is widely used. Do the Government intend to stop its being used?

Mr. Booth: The code will have no statutory basis and no statutory connection with the legislation from the time of the repeal of the Act, but, as I have said already, we shall be quite happy to examine the idea and concept of a code in connection with a later piece of legislation for employment protection.

Mr. Tugendhat: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the TUC and affiliated organisations about the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act.

Mr. Foot: They have made it absolutely clear to me that they want the Act repealed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Tugendhat: Will the right hon. Gentleman say which proposals put forward by the TUC he has felt unable to accept?

Mr. Foot: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman shares the desire of so many others that the Bill should be brought forward with the utmost speed. I have always understood that the proper time to discuss particular clauses in a Bill is when the measure is brought before the House. In that sense, we shall proceed according to normal practice.

Mr. Rose: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the real concern in trade union circles about the actions of the NIRC, thrashing around in its death throes, in the sequestration of union funds? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to put those adversely affected by the actions of that unacceptable court in the position

that they would have been in had the court never been brought into existence, and so take the heat out of the potential frustration between the court and the AUEW?

Mr. Foot: There is a clause in the Bill which it would not be proper for me to divulge in detail because the measure is being presented today. There are clauses which deal with the transitional arrangements, and we shall discuss them in the House. Those clauses tackle some of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised, but I must acknowledge not all, because we have not found it possible to deal with some issues by the method suggested by my hon. Friend. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no subject to which I have given more attention than the danger that the Act will go on poisoning our industrial relations, even in its dying days. This is a matter of great concern and we are doing everything that we can to see how we may overcome the problem.

Mr. Lane: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that his real contract ought to be with the British people as a whole, and that a large number will look critically at the Bill tomorrow to see whether it will be a case of one law for trade unions and another for everyone else?

Mr. Foot: If people look at it searchingly for such a conclusion to comfort them they will find nothing of the sort. They will find that we are repealing the 1971 Act and making some improvements in the situation, and not creating the position that there is no law governing trade unions. In one sense we shall be reverting to the excellent laws that prevailed in this country for quite a long time, some of them having been introduced in 1875 and some in 1906. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that those are distant dates, but they were better Acts than the 1971 measure.

London Weighting

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will ask that the report on London weighting should be expedited.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what response he has had from the Pay Board to his request that the preparation of the report on London weighting should be expedited.

Mr. Foot: The Chairman of the Pay Board has assured me that everything possible is being done to produce the report quickly, but he cannot promise completion before the end of June.

Mr. Tebbit: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of those who voted for his party did so on the basis that there would be a complete end to any incomes policy? Is he aware, further, that when it is stated in this House, as it was yesterday, that the report of the Pay Board on London weighting will not matter very much and will merely be the basis on which to build an additional settlement, supporters of the right hon. Gentleman's party cannot understand why he is still resisting their pay claims?

Mr. Foot: One of the reasons why the hon. Gentleman's constituents may not understand the situation is that they have been listening to him. If they had listened to my right hon. and hon. Friends they would know that our policy is to make a change-over from the compulsory system which we condemn to a voluntary one, as we said in our election manifesto, and that we wish to make the smoothest possible change-over from one to the other. Meantime, we have indicated—all this has been stated clearly to the House—that we think it right to take into account the report on London weighting because it is an extremely complex matter and because we think that the advice of the Pay Board can be of assistance to all those affected—not only the teachers and NALGO members, but all others affected —although we also say that the settlement which we hope will be very speedy after 30th June does not necessarily have to be bound by the exact terms of the report, since that, too, would be difficult. Therefore, by then we hope and trust that there will be the opportunity of free negotiation on this matter, which we believe to be the proper way of dealing with it.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the issue of the London weighting allowance has been festering for three years without any endeavour to resolve it and that he has inherited a nasty situation, which is having an effect on recruitment in local government in London? Is he aware, further, that if he does not resolve the problem in one-tenth of the time that the Tories took to

create it he will be regarded as slipping up a little?

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I assure him and his constituents that no one could have put the case on this matter more forcibly than he and others of my hon. Friends representing London constituencies did. They have put the case to me very strongly, and it is partly on that basis that we have worked out what we think will be the speediest way of securing a proper settlement of the matter.

Mr. Hayhoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman happy to use the Pay Board and its machinery as an excuse for delaying settling this very important question of the London weighting allowance?

Mr. Foot: I am not using it as an excuse. [Interruption.] I cannot help what the hon. Gentleman thinks. That is his business. This is an extremely complicated matter, and no one is more impatient than I am to get this report in our hands and to be able to act upon it. But it is not an excuse to say that we should have that report, because the matter is very complex. When we get it, I think that it will assist all those affected. I think that is the best way of proceeding.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Government supporters feel that 15,000 London teachers yesterday amply demonstrated the necessity for action on this report before 31st May and that they expect the settlement finally concluded to be vastly in excess of the derisory 30p a week offered by the last administration?

Mr. Foot: I am grateful for that. I went to meet members of the demonstration yesterday. They put their views to me forcibly, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have done. We have stated clearly our position about it. I agree especially with what my hon. Friend said in his second observation about the settlement that we shall have to reach after 30th June. I sought to describe yesterday some of the ways in which I thought that that could be achieved as quickly as possible. It is a most important settlement, and it will be reached in very different conditions from those which operated when the previous administration were in power.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his discussions with local authority employees and representatives of the GLC on union claims for London weighting.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his meeting with NALGO officials concerning London allowances.

Mr. Foot: I met a deputation from the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Administrative, Professional, Technical and Clerical Services and representatives from the Greater London Council on 1st April. They presented a most powerful case and I promised to discuss it with my colleagues. However, the Government have decided that increases in London weighting beyond those permitted by the Pay Code must await the Pay Board's report, and I have written to the parties explaining our reasons fully.

Mr. Adley: Why is the right hon. Gentleman now hiding behind the Pay Board? Could it be that NALGO and the NUT have less muscle than the NUM?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman's suggested explanation has nothing to do with the facts. I am glad to relieve his mind on that point entirely. We listened to a most powerful case that was argued by NALGO. Its members certainly have a strong case, as have the teachers and many others. We had to take them into account as well. We said, and still say, that we should await the board's report for dealing with London weighting because it is so complicated and a number of people are not covered by the present system. That is why a fresh inquiry has had to be set up to look into the matter. It is an inquiry with much wider terms of reference than any previous inquiry. Therefore, it is sensible to await the outcome.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the London allowance is an important ingredient in the make-up of the wages and salaries of teachers and local government officers in London? They have been frustrated for three and a half years. The fact that my right hon. Friend now occupies his present position

has rekindled their belief in industrial democracy. They believe that it is now worth while protesting and seeing a Minister of the Crown because they are confident that they will get results far superior to their endeavours, which have been absolutely frustrated during the last three and a half years.

Mr. Foot: I certainly appreciate the frustrations of NALGO members and others which my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have expressed to me. I am sure that those frustrations are real and not simulated in any sense. I have certainly taken them into account. I hope that the way in which we propose to go about it, although unpopular and criticised, will be found to be the best way in the end, because it will enable negotiations to take place covering a long period ahead in the best possible circumstances. It is difficult to ask people to be patient in such circumstances, but I ask them to be so. I believe that eventually they will understand why we have approached the matter in this way.

Mr. Whitelaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome his conversion to the idea of awaiting the report from the Pay Board?

Mr. Foot: It is not quite a conversion on my part. As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, in the first remarks that I made from this Dispatch Box I said that I thought it would be foolish for us to stop the board from making its investigations in the middle of its report, and the fact that it is taking such a long time to do that is further proof of how wise I was not to say that its previous work should be abandoned. There was no conversion on my part. It was just my normal recognition of common sense.

Departmental Agencies (Head Offices)

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now announce the intended permanent location of the head offices of the Manpower Services Commission, the Training Services Agency and the Employment Services Agency.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): The commission is making a study of this question, and when we have received and


considered its views we shall announce a decision as soon as possible.

Mr. Redmond: Are not the commission and its two agencies concerned with people in industry? Is there not a bigger concentration of people in industry in the North-West than in any other part of the country? Would it not be a good idea for the commission or one of its agencies to establish its headquarters in Lancashire?

Mr. Walker: This matter was considered by the Hardman Committee, and the Government are examining the report of that committee as a matter of some urgency.

Mr. Dan Jones: When my hon. Friend is considering Lancashire will he give special consideration to north-east Lancashire, which has suffered more than the county generally?

Mr. Walker: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall have regard to the claims of Lancashire, of north-east Lancashire and of all other parts of the country before we announce our decision.

Glasgow Firemen (Travel Allowances)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he now intends to exercise his discretion to override the Pay Board's rulings in the case of the travelling allowances paid to Glasgow firemen.

Mr. Booth: My right hon. Friend is considering giving his consent, under paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, for the payment of travel allowances to Glasgow firemen.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be wise to do that. How is he proposing to explain that to the rest of the firemen, and what opportunity will this House have to consider the remarkably discriminatory and selective use of his powers, for example, as regards the Shetland fishing situation, the Hull freezer trawlermen and now, perhaps, the Glasgow firemen—but not, for example, as regards companies like English China Clay and their employees? Shall we have an opportunity to consider the exercise of the Secretary of State's discriminatory powers and their impact on other industries so affected?

Mr. Booth: It is not appropriate at the Dispatch Box during Question Time to rehearse the individual arguments on any number of complicated factors which are represented to my right hon. Friend for giving consent in any one of a number of cases. As for the opportunities that the House will have for considering the matter, I should think that those who proposed the legislation and made this provision might have given careful consideration to it when introducing the Bill.

Mr. Sillars: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Fire Brigades Union is in favour of the Glasgow firemen receiving the £2 a week? Is he further aware that other firemen in Scotland have no objection to the money being paid, but would object if it were on the basic rate of wages, which is a different matter? Is he also aware that all the contributions made by hon. Gentlemen opposite on incomes policy could properly be interpreted as supporting a voluntary policy? Will he therefore arrange for a fairly early test of opinion in this House on a voluntary policy so that we might not then have some of these anomalies?

Mr. Booth: My right hon. Friend and I are keenly aware of the attitude of the Fire Brigades Union on this issue, since it has made representations to us on the matter. The union has indicated that it draws a clear distinction between the grounds for this consent and the position of other fire brigades. I hope that we shall be able to please my hon. Friend by putting to the House the test whether the Opposition support the continuation of a statutory policy in the near future.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the possibility that not all experts on the Glasgow fire service come from South Angus? Does he agree that in the fire service and in Government circles it is generally accepted that the Glasgow fire service has to face fire risks and hazards not usually encountered in other cities in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Booth: The nature of the fire risks and hazards in Glasgow was among the factors represented to us when we were considering this consent.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the inadequate nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter again at the earliest possible opportunity.

Trades Union Congress (Talks)

Mr. Harry Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he next proposes to meet the TUC.

Mr. Foot: I expect to continue my discussions with trade union leaders, but at present have no arrangements for a formal meeting with the TUC.

Mr. Ewing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the meetings that have taken place between himself and the TUC are largely responsible for the new healthy climate in industrial relations? Will he take this opportunity of paying tribute to Hugh Scanlon and the engineering workers for settling their wage dispute and calling off the overtime ban? Will he point out that the social contract is working and that the implementation of the introduction of our own industrial relations policy today is a further indication of the new healthy relationship between the Government and the trade union movement?

Mr. Foot: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] When the truth is spoken so exquisitely, why should we not all rejoice? My Department tried to assist in getting negotiations going in the engineering industry. That is what we wanted to do, and that is the way to deal with these problems.

Mr. Tugendhat: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that when next he has important meetings with the TUC and important decisions are taken, they will be announced by him or by a member of the Government rather than by the General Secretary of the TUC?

Mr. Foot: No announcement was made by the General Secretary. The whole procedure was reasonable and proper. I am not sure whether the Opposition, having discovered that they cannot oppose the outcome, are now concentrating their attack on procedure. Which is it?

Picketing

Mr. Stanley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the subject of picketing since his statement of 22nd March.

Mr. Booth: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) on 9th' April.—[Vol. 872, c. 83.]

Mr. Stanley: Will the Minister explain how he reconciles his support of the principle that picketing should be peaceful, in his statement on 22nd March, with the proposed granting of the right of pickets to obstruct the passage of motor vehicles?

Mr. Booth: If the hon. Gentleman will read the Bill published today he will find that we are not making any such proposal. Pickets are to be given immunity in contemplation and furtherance of trades disputes. This can be used only in a peaceful way. The question of the right to picket vehicles is under careful consideration, and I hope to see that provision introduced in a later employment protection measure.

Mr. Waddington: We know that there is nothing about this absurd proposal in the Bill. We want to know whether the hon. Gentleman still agrees with the absurd suggestion that a man should be required to stop and listen to arguments to which he does not want to listen. What philosophy inspires that extraordinary notion?

Mr. Booth: The basic right to seek to persuade somebody to desist from breaking or harming a dispute can be fully practised in modern terms only if it includes the right to communicate with the driver of a vehicle seeking to enter premises where a dispute is taking place.

Government Scientists (Pay)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now make a statement on his review of Government scientists' pay in the light of the report of the Pay Board.

Mr. Foot: The pay of Civil Service scientists is first of all a matter for my


right hon. Friend the Minister for the Civil Service, although, of course, general issues of pay policy are involved. The Civil Service Department and the Institution of Professional Civil Servants are now giving urgent consideration to the action to be taken on the recommendations made in the Pay Board's report.

Mr. Dalyell: Do the Government agree with the view of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants that the scientists are two notches behind the rest of the civil servants?

Mr. Foot: I should not like to agree with that proposition without first seeing the results of the discussions that are taking place, but I hope, with my hon. Friend, that the matter may be dealt with speedily.

Mr. Neave: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that Government scientists have had a raw deal and that a settlement is urgently required as many of them are in serious financial difficulties?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman put the scientists' case to me, and he put it very well, as everyone will understand; but others, too, have put their cases to me. I listened to the case that was put, but I had to say that we should await the report. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Government scientists have had a raw deal, but so have many other people.

MERSEYSIDE

Ql. Mr. Loyden: asked the Prime Minister if he intends to make an official visit to Merseyside.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I regularly visit Merseyside, Sir.

Mr. Loyden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed and informative answer. Does he not agree that there are problems on Merseyside, of which he is aware, which require the attention of the Government, and that such a visit would be productive in establishing that something ought to be done about unemployment in the area—now running at 5·8 per cent.—about the tremendous housing problem and about the uncertainty of industry in that area, particularly in relation to Shotton?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the period of the previous Government the situation on Merseyside deteriorated and that the expectations of the people on Merseyside are that a permanent solution will be found by a Labour Government?

The Prime Minister: I confess that I did not hear the last few words of what my hon. Friend said, but I should like to thank him for his informative question and to say that what I did hear of it entirely confirmed my assessment of the situation. It is only fair to say that Merseyside, for reasons which the House appreciates, has suffered a great deal from the problem of unemployment for many years. It is a fact that the problem has intensified in recent years, and it is also a fact, as my hon. Friend said, that a radical solution is required to overcome some of these difficulties.

Mr. Bray: On the next occasion when the right hon. Gentleman visits Merseyside, will he arrange to make his peace with the unfortunate bondholders of Mersey Docks and Harbour Board stock who, unfortunately, suffered severe financial losses by virtue of a promise or a proposal by his previous administration to nationalise the docks industry, as a result of which the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board rather gave way to wishful thinking? Many constituents in the North-West have lost severely as a result of that, and I sincerely ask the right hon. Gentleman to make his peace with them.

The Prime Minister: I regret the myopia of the hon. Gentleman. The Minister responsible is sitting almost in front of the hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that during the lame-duck period of the previous Government the first sufferer was the whole group of investors in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and that we on the Opposition benches strongly condemned the repudiation by the then Government of what had been understood to be the rights of the stockholders.

CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister if he will define the responsibilities of the Central Policy Review Staff on the one hand and of the


Policy Group under Dr. Donoughue on the other; and what is the aggregate annual cost to public funds of the latter body.

The Prime Minister: The tasks of the Central Policy Review Staff continue to be those set out in Cmnd 4506, carrying out policy analysis for Ministers collectively. The unit under Dr. Donoughue, who has been appointed as a senior policy adviser at 10 Downing Street, advises me, concentrating in particular on shorter-term questions mainly of domestic policy. The total annual cost of the unit is some £50,000 excluding the cost of accommodation.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Now that it has become apparent that the political hatchet men have been recruited, not as a single spy but in battalions, would it not be more seemly that they should be paid by Transport House or, better still, by the Labour Party's union bosses, so that there should be no dubiety about where their allegiance lies?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman forgets that the previous Government—in my view, quite rightly—brought a lot of people into No. 10 and the Cabinet Office. Whether they were paid by the Conservative Central Office or, as in some cases, by the taxpayers makes no difference. They had full facilities and full access to documents. We have followed the report of the Fulton Committee in this regard. When the hon. Gentleman refers to single spies, as I think he did —a good Shakespearean quotation—I should say that we have not put a single spy into the CPRS, as was done by the appointment of the Tory Central Office man into the CPRS. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Horam. [Interruption.] Order. I have called Mr. Horam.

Mr. Horam: Is not a policy group of this kind very much better than heavy and excessive reliance on the Head of the Civil Service, and is it not strange for the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) to criticise this arrangement, which may lead to a more consistent political approach?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter to which a good deal of thought has been given. I agree with the Fulton Committee. I agree with what the right hon.

Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did. We have followed it, apart from the argument about payment. I could not understand what my hon. Friend had in mind when he referred to the Head of the Civil Service, who carried the confidence of successive Governments up to 1970, after 1970, and up to the present time. I very much resent some of the ill-informed, illiterate and ignorant criticism of his recent appointment.

Mr. Peyton: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that this question raises the point about those to whom access to confidential Government information is given? This point is particularly important at the present time in view of the allegations—I know not how well founded—that red boxes, under his previous administration, received a somewhat odd circulation.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is getting hard up for information if he relies on Private Eye. The story is entirely untrue. No red box, blue box, black box or green box moved as the right hon. Gentleman seems to think. Perhaps he will check his facts and get in touch with me, instead of lowering what was once a moderately distinguished ministerial career by allegations of that kind.

OFFICIAL VISITS

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister how many official visits he made during the recess.

The Prime Minister: Three, Sir. On 18th April I visited Northern Ireland, where I had talks with security chiefs, members of the Northern Ireland administration and trade unionists. I also visited Hayes on 27th April and Margate on 28th April, where I addressed the delegates to the Annual Conference of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.

Mr. Ashley: While I realise that my right hon. Friend would find no time to visit many of the dependants of the victims of the DC10 which crashed at Ermenonville near Paris, may I ask whether he is aware that many of these dependants were disoriented by the shock and grief of the disaster, and had no idea to whom or where to turn? Does he


agree that we urgently need a disaster organisation to be set up as speedily as possible to advise on the financial, medical and legal questions which arise in these circumstances? Does he now agree in principle to establishing such a special organisation, and will he consult his departmental Ministers with a view to getting on with the practical details of it?

The Prime Minister: The whole House expressed its sense of shock and tragedy at this crash, which occurred, in fact, just after the General Election, before the new Government took over. I think that the shock referred to by my hon. Friend has been made all the more harrowing by the difficulties about agreement on the burial of the victims arising out of the problems of identification. Her Majesty's Government, as any other Government in this country would have done, have promised their full support to get justice in so far as this means anything, in terms of compensation for the relatives of those who, sadly, were killed in this crash.

Mr. Farr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the sadness of many people in Leicestershire that he did not visit them during the recess? If he had done so he would have had a chance to ascertain their wrath at seeing their rates doubled in the past month while those of London ratepayers were halved? He could have had a chance to explain to them why they are incorrect in assuming that this action by the Government is related to Thursday's London local government elections.

The Prime Minister: The question of the rates determination, which was made following the very unjust rates decision of the previous Government, was debated in the House, and the House came to a conclusion. I have no doubt that on that occasion the hon. Member tried to explain the feeling of his constituents, as did others. At least some Conservative Members joined their Front Bench in the Division Lobby. Not all did.

Mr. Hooson: Does the Prime Minister not regret that during the recess he failed to visit an agricultural area, so that he could appreciate for himself the nature and degree of the crisis in the livestock industry? Whereas I think the major blame for this crisis belongs to the Conservative Government, the leaders of power are now in the hands of his Gov-

ernment. What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about it?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct in saying that it is a very serious situation, which goes back further than the time of change of Government. I will not put it any higher than that. My right hon. Friends' concern with these problems has been made clear in debate and at Question Time, and they take a very serious attitude to the situation. They are doing everything in their power to help.

Mr. Harry Ewing: When my right hon. Friend spoke to the USDAW delegates at Margate, was any indication given that Sir Hugh Fraser is likely to pay the same wages in Glasgow as he pays at Harrods, in London?

The Prime Minister: I do not remember that question being raised there, but I had to leave the conference shortly after I had made my own speech. Perhaps it was raised in the later days of the conference.

GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Dr. Edmund Marshall: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his speech at Leeds on 30th March about the achievements of the Government.

The Prime Minister: I did so two days later, Sir.

Dr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues accept congratulations from the Labour women in Yorkshire, whom he was addressing on that occasion, for fulfilling one of the commitments which he repeated during that speech, namely, to bring to this House by 1st May a Bill repealing the Industrial Relations Act and creating an entirely fresh climate for good relations throughout industry?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I thought there was no doubt about the reaction of the Yorkshire ladies to what I said on that occasion. There has been abundant evidence since then that their reaction to what I said about the achievements of the Government is very widely supported throughout the rest of the country, by both ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his speech in Leeds he said—and I will now read—
The Budget would have borne…"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One of the rules of the House is that an hon. Member may not quote when asking a supplementary question.

Mr. Lawson: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his speech at Leeds he said that the Budget would have borne a very different complexion had it not been for the three-day working week? Is he not aware that this is totally at variance with the explanation of the Budget judgment given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us which taxes would have been different and whether they would have been higher or lower, and by how much, had it not been for the three-day working week?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. On the contrary, my right hon. Friend has made clear repeatedly that because of the three-day working week and the difficulty of estimating how quickly we could emerge as a country from the consequences of the three-day week and the loss of output and the further twist that it gave to inflation, it was impossible for him to give as clear a Budget judgment as he would have wished. That is why he announced that there would be a second Budget in due course—a proposal which I think was endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Duffy: Does the Prime Minister recall reminding his audience on that day of a previous speech in Leeds last December, when he expressed the hope that within three years of the next election he could claim to the electorate that steps had been taken to adopt all the major heads of his programme? Does not my right hon. Friend think that he can now make that claim to the electorate not after three years but after three months?

The Prime Minister: I did so at Leeds, after a shorter period. I quoted the exact words that I had used in Leeds at the beginning of December last. Of the main eight points that an incoming Labour Government would carry out, I was able

to show that four have been carried out in less than one month and that two or three more, and ultimately all of them, would be carried through.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: By filling Whitehall with supporters of the Labour Party who are paid from public funds, is not one of the achievements of the Prime Minister to obliterate the constitutional distinction between what is Government policy and what is a matter of party politics? Will the Prime Minister explain to the House what part the Cabinet Office played in the issue of the statement of the Leader of the House this morning?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, as a great student of our constitution, speaks with great authority, not least about the previous Government, because he spent a considerable time there, as we all know. But he will know that in this country government tends to be political. No Government were ever more political than the previous Government, whom he supported. I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman should want to take up—it is not characteristic of him—the statement made by my right hon. Friend, which was issued yesterday. This was a statement made on the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, with my full approval, and it did not involve the work of the Civil Service or of anyone referred to by the hon. Gentleman. It would be in accordance with the custom of this House if hon. Gentlemen were now to accept what was said by my right hon. Friend, or, if not, to decide to hold him accountable for anything with which they do not agree.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Adley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House at 1.10 a.m. today.
I submit that the matter is urgent because this statement should have been made in Parliament. It is specific because the right hon. Gentleman referred to a specific matter.
A debate on this matter is essential, Mr. Speaker, because the right hon. Gentleman's statement has raised more questions than it has answered.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) gave me notice that he would be making this application. I have listened to what he has said. I am afraid that I must say that I do not think that any matter could be more inappropriate for a debate under the procedure of Standing Order No. 9. I must reject his application.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I must now take up some time of the House in giving a number of rulings.
First, I want to deal with the matters which arose out of the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) yesterday.
I deal first with the point made by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) about the availability in the Vote Office of Statutory Instruments laid before the House. This matter is one for the Government, who, some 20 years ago, undertook to see that copies of instruments subject to negative resolution should normally be available in the Vote Office when the instruments were laid. I understand that in this case the instrument was so laid, but if hon. Members have any points to raise on the implementation of that undertaking, it is a matter for the Ministers concerned.
The next matter is that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) asked me to consider whether there might be an element of contempt of the House in the making of regulations which prevent Members who are barristers from appearing before Family Practitioners' Committees on behalf of their constituents. I think that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West used the phrase "verging on contempt".
Parliamentary privilege is intended to cover proceedings in Parliament. I do not think that there is authority for supposing that protection given by privilege

to proceedings in Parliament can be extended to this sort of activity. The decision whether to exclude Members who are barristers, who are paid or unpaid, from representing their constituents before such committees is one for the House to take under the proceedings prescribed in relation to these regulations. I am therefore afraid that I cannot rule that the points raised by the hon. Members for Newham, North-West and for Nottingham, West would justify me in giving the matter precedence over the Orders of the Day.
Now for the hon. Member for Watford, who originally raised the subject. He asked for my help. I have considerable sympathy with the import of his complaint. However, there is no procedural action that I can take in the matter. It must be for the Member himself to take such steps as are open to him to seek the annulment of these regulations. I must not comment on the merits of a regulation —nor have I heard the case for the regulation deployed. But I do confess to a degree of unease about the whole matter, and I hope that it may be considered by those who have the power to act.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Further to what I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State is considering this matter and will make a statement to the House tomorrow.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I took the opportunity to follow your kind advice yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and I have tabled a Prayer to annul the order. I hope that my beloved Government will give me a chance to have this Prayer debated.

Mr. Speaker: No doubt that expression of affection and hope will have been noted.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: I shall now rule on the complaint made by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), but I must first dispose of a procedural matter relating to the making of complaints relating to privilege. When a Member makes a complaint based upon the contents of a newspaper, he must at the same time hand in a complete copy


of that newspaper. Rulings to that effect are to be found on page 159 of Erskine May. I think, therefore, that I am probably precluded from taking into account the extracts from the Daily Telegraph quoted by the hon. Baronet, as only part of that newspaper was handed in.
I should say at once, however, that the resolution of the House of 30th October 1947 makes it quite clear that the Committee of Privileges may inquire into any matters which they consider to be reasonably connected with each other and are not bound by the terms of a particular complaint. I have no doubt that if this matter goes to the Committee of Privileges the matter raised by the hon. Baronet in the second part of his submission will be considered by the Committee of Privileges.
My ruling is that I consider that the matter of the complaint made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Peterborough relating to the statements made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) in a broadcast interview is such that I should permit a motion relating to the matter to be given precedence over the Orders of the Day. Does the hon. Member for Bassetlaw wish to say something?

Mr. Ashton: Thank you for that ruling, Mr. Speaker. I shall appear before the Committee of Privileges to substantiate the allegations, though I fear that this may bring the House into greater disrepute than the article that I wrote.
May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the statement made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) yesterday when he either misread or misquoted the transcript which he had and which you have in your possession with regard to what I said on the Jimmy Young show?—[Interruption.] This is a very serious business. Quite specifically, the hon. Member for Peterborough states, as reported at the bottom of c. 784 of HANSARD for 29th April,
Again the question was asked in the interview"—
regarding charities—
'What amounts of money would be involved in this sort of operation?' The reply was: 'It is difficult to say but I did hear of somebody…getting 100 guineas.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April 1974; Vol. 872, c. 784–85.]

That is not the case in the transcript, as you will see, Mr. Speaker, as you have a copy. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is the procedure now for putting the record right as to what was recorded in the transcript and what the hon. Member for Peterborough should have read out?

Mr. Speaker: I have ruled that this matter should have precedence. I want to make it very clear that I have not used the expression "I think there is a prima facie case". Although there is authority in Erskine May for using that expression, I have always abstained from doing so because I think that that implies my making a judgment in the case. I am not making any judgment in this case because I do not think that it is right for the Chair to do so. All I am saying is that this is a matter which should be considered by the Committee of Privileges, and that I think that a motion relating to it should have precedence over the business of the day. The points which the hon. Members have raised must surely be considered by the Committee of Privileges should the matter go there.

Mr. Lee: Does that mean, Mr. Speaker, that in order that the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges there must be a formal motion by the House?

Mr. Speaker: I was about to call on the Leader of the House.
In accordance with the usual practice, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) must—as he is doing—withdraw from the House while the matter is being discussed.
The hon. Member then withdrew.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): In view of your ruling Mr. Speaker, I beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Peterborough relating to statements made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw in a broadcast interview be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Heath: I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House. Perhaps the House will permit me to say, after the considerable experience I have had in the House as Leader of the Opposition and as Prime Minister, and also as a backbencher, and with experience of the Committee of Privileges and the debates which the House has had on


the reports of that committee, that on the whole it has proved to be in the interests of the good name of the House itself that such matters should at once be referred to the Committee of Privileges and that we should not debate this matter on the inadequate information which we have before the House at the moment.
I therefore hope that the motion will be passed and that we leave it to the Committee of Privileges to examine the matter carefully in its own good time and then report to the House.

Mr. John Mendelson: As against the opinion and the advice just given by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, there has been built up over the last 10 years a body of precedents when the House has deliberately decided to debate such motions and not to agree to refer them automatically and immediately without further debate to the Committee of Privileges. I would not want the tendency which has developed over the last 10 years or so to be broken now by an automatic, on-the-nod agreement to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
There is a precedent which I should not like to be set, namely, the automatic development of the point of view that, because we do not like a statement, the Committee of Privileges procedure is necessarily the right one. The Committee of Privileges procedure is not necessarily always and immediately the correct procedure.
In the debates over the last 10 years the case for privilege and for reference to the Committee of Privileges has been carefully narrowed. On one memorable occasion, when the debate was led by my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Employment, the recommendation, which is made on only a prima facie case, was overturned. Therefore, it is not all moving in one direction. The opinion of the majority on the occasion when the recommendation was not accepted was guided very largely, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, by the view that what matters here is the opinion of the country—public opinion at large—coupled with the danger that the whole procedure of the Committee of Privileges is being misunderstood arising from the original narrowness of the purpose of the whole procedure.
It was argued in that debate—I repeat it this afternoon—that the main purpose of privilege over the ages always has been to protect a Member in the exercise of his duties as a Member of the House of Commons. In its crudest form, if a Member had given a public indication that he wished to raise a certain issue in the House and if, when he was on his way from the North West or from some other part of the country to Westminster somebody waylaid him and said to him, "If you raise that you will be for it", that would be the clearest example of a Member being threatened with a view to preventing him from exercising his duty as a Member of the House of Commons.
Privilege has never had anything to do with protecting a Member. It has been concerned with protecting the public, protecting constituents, and thereby rendering it impossible for anybody to threaten or to intimidate a Member of Parliament. That is the purpose of privilege. The name is a misnomer, as Members have agreed for many years. It would be much better if a way could be found of changing the name of the Committee of Privileges to make it all the clearer to the public at large.
By no stretch of the imagination can it be argued that we are dealing here with a case of a Member being threatened to prevent his exercising his proper function as a Member of the House of Commons.
I turn to the second point that I wish to establish. We are engaged in a great debate. The free decision of the House whether the matter be referred can take into account all the circumstances of the present state of public opinion. This is why it is not a Governmental decision, not a decision taken automatically by Mr. Speaker, but a decision of the majority of the House.
I will next state the precedent that I do not want to see established by a vote to refer. Following the pursuit of general argument—whether or not we agree with either the words used or the comments made—there may in the very near future be established a compulsory public register of the interests of the Members of the House of Commons. Debate is raging on this issue. There is more than one opinion. There are right hon. and hon.


Members who wish to see such a compulsory public register established. There are other right hon. and hon. Members who do not wish to see such a compulsory public register established. It is, therefore, an important and legitimate subject for public debate.
If in advancing a certain point of view in this important debate anyone makes a case which is not to the taste of some of us or many of us and uses words and phrases which we find unacceptable, that does not mean that we would be right and that it would be in the public interest to establish a precedent which warns off either members of the public or hon. Members against adducing examples and illustrations which they wish to adduce. There could be such a warning off by people being told, "Do not be too drastic in your allegations." That would stifle the advancement of the case for a compulsory register which many right hon. and hon. Members wish to advance.
I have very much in mind members of the public at large because, as is common ground between us, it can be alleged by any hon. Member that a member of the public outside the House has committed a breach of privilege and such a member of the public could be summoned to appear before the Committee of Privileges if the matter were referred to the committee. It would also be a warning off to members of the public not to be too drastic in the illustrations they wish to adduce.
Finally, in the debate that is developing it is most important that there should be an understanding between us that, if there is the establishment of a compulsory public register so that everything can be tested, we should not allow a case to grow up and precedents to be established so as to tilt the balance in the direction of other more private bodies such as the Committee of Privileges.
There is a danger here of our being misunderstood outside if, instead of saying, "If a member of the public or a Member of the House makes such suggestions, let him be challenged in public immediately. Let him be challenged in debate. Let the many occasions be used on which debate can develop", we let the matter be bottled up in the Committee of Privileges over many weeks.
I submit that there is at least a powerful case for consideration as to why this matter should not be referred to the Committee of Privileges but that, instead, there should be a free debate on the suggestions that have been made. Those of us who think these suggestions wrongheaded should tell the hon. Member so, engage him in debate, and generally do everything in front of the British people so that the public at large may have knowledge of the way in which this matter is tackled by Members of Parliament. That in my opinion would be much more conducive to establishing public confidence.
I would confine the procedure or privilege to its original purpose of protecting hon. Members in the exercise of their work. If sufficient feeling develops in the debate that I hope will now follow, I propose to test the opinion of the House with a vote. At any rate it would have been wrong to refer the matter automatically to the Committee of Privileges without a debate here and now.

Mr. David Steel: I agree with the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendleson). I do not feel able to recommend to my hon. Friends that they should support the motion in the Division Lobby. We are now engaging in a general and widespread debate in this House and outside on the whole question of Members' interests and it would be entirely wrong to take one hon. Member's remarks and make a mountain out of a molehill by seeking to refer them to the Committee of Privileges.
If the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir H. Nicholls) were one of those complained against, as he clearly could not be by the terms in which the article was written, I might have had more sympathy. As far as I am aware, however, none of the hon. Members to whom the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) was referring has made any complaint or has said that this was an improper statement by the hon. Member. Since the original article the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has discussed the matter publicly on the radio and debated the issue on television with another hon. Member who took a different view. In the light of that, suddenly to parcel the whole thing up and send it to the Committee of Privileges seems entirely wrong.
I am particularly motivated by the statement yesterday that we are to have a statement from the Leader of the House within a few days on the question of Members' interests. That will be debated openly by the whole House, and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and those who disagree with him will be able to participate. In view of that it would be entirely wrong to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Lee: I shall urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to withdraw his motion and if he does not I shall join my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendleson) in forcing a Division on the matter.
I do so for a number of reasons. There is in this country the most profound disquiet about the prevailing standards of financial probity. We are not yet down to the Watergate level and we have not a President Nixon, thank God, but there have been a number of disturbing episodes and incidents. It seems to me a most unfortunate coincidence that this procedure should be adopted now which will have the effect of putting this matter in abeyance for a considerable period.
I was not in the Chamber yesterday but I believe the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) stigmatised the setting up of a Royal Commission on corruption by describing it as a method of sweeping matters under the carpet. That is not altogether fair, because a Royal Commission has extensive powers of subpoena, and the Committee of Privileges has power to enforce the attendance of witnesses. But at the end of the day the matter has to be decided in this House, and my view now is that in the light of the disturbing events of the last few months, and even the last few years, it is highly desirable that this matter should be debated at the earliest possible opportunity.
I have one other objection. This is a narrow point and is less important than my first remark. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir H. Nicholls) did not even appear competent to raise this matter in the proper form in the first place. That does not exactly endear one to him or encourage the House to take a sympathetic view of the matter he raised. Quite apart from the fact that the hon. Member

for Peterborough is not personally involved in the matter, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) pointed out, it is extraordinary that he should want to foreclose the debate. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House persists in pressing the motion there will be a Division and I believe that a large number of hon. Members will oppose him.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House. The most foolish contribution to this debate was that made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) who said that there was no need to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges since the Members who were named had not complained. Surely the most dangerous aspect of this affair is that nobody was named and that there was a general smear against the members of one party.
There has been too much of this general accusation in the last few weeks. It is dangerous for the House of Commons. It is easy to make general, sweeping allegations about MPs. They always have a willing audience and they are readily reported. Surely the best way to deal with it is for the Committee of Privileges to look into the whole matter.
One of the most damaging aspects in recent weeks has been the sweeping, general allegations in magazines and elsewhere. It is time the matter was probed. It is important, when an anonymous allegation is made which could apply to many people and as a result of which every member of a party suffers in some way, that a motion such as that moved by the Leader of the House should be accepted.

Mr. English: I entirely support the statements made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). There is a danger that we will allow our emotions to overcome our reason. You, Mr. Speaker, quite specifically made the point, which is relatively unusual, that you were not judging the prima facie aspects of the case but simply allowing the matter to go to the Committee of Privileges. I think it was your predecessor, Mr. Speaker King, who is now in another place, who did that without being as explicit as you have been today. With


due modesty I congratulate you Mr. Speaker on being the first Speaker to say so.

Mr. Speaker: May I intervene? I said that this issue should go to the Committee of Privileges provided that the House so decides.

Mr. English: I was congratulating you on being the first Speaker to say what you said, Mr. Speaker. What the House decides is, or may be, a different matter.
Like probably every other hon. Member, I have been asking myself what would happen if I were attacked by another hon. Member. I would prefer, if I were attacked, to be attacked by name and by specific allegations so that I could stand up in the House and defend myself. For aught I know, and I am not here referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), any general anonymous allegation could be regarded in the same circumstances as any allegation hon. Members might receive in correspondence. Is there an hon. Member here who has not had an anonymous letter attacking him for something he has done or said?

Mr. Lee: So what?

Mr. English: One man out of several hundred hon. Members says, "So what?". I asked a simple question and nobody denied it. There is not an hon. Member who says he has not had an anonymous accusation. We all know that we have and we do not even bother to pursue them.
I have the best of reasons to believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw can justify entirely what he said. I do not dispute that what he said earlier was true, but it would be better if it were referred to a committee which sits, with the Attorney-General present, as a court.
However, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will pass on one thing to that committee, at least privately. I do not expect a public answer. It is obvious in the circumstances that if the Committee of Privileges met in public, as it is entitled to decide for itself, and heard its evidence

in public, as any court in this land does, that would possibly overcome some of the objections that have been mentioned. It would be hearing evidence in such a way that other people could hear it. I am not asking you to answer this, Mr. Speaker, because it is not within your jurisdiction, but I know that you can privately make suggestions, as can all hon. Members.

It seems to me that the matter should be referred to the committee, as the motion suggests, and that it should be there discussed, instead of being discussed in a vague, anonymous way. But it should be discussed in public, not in private.

Mr. Spriggs: I seek your guidance on the matter, Mr. Speaker. I have never been involved in a case of this kind before. I ask whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who wrote the article we are talking about, can call witnesses to give evidence before the Committee of Privileges. If so, what kind of notice may right hon. or hon. Members expect to receive? From my own information, knowing of the vested interests outside the House and the kind of approaches that are made to Members of Parliament to accept various paid offices outside, I know that many hon. Members will be worried before the vote is taken about their position in regard to giving evidence.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) has asked me for guidance. I do not think that I can give guidance to the present Committee of Privileges, but there was a time when I was Chairman of the Committee, and I can say that we considered very carefully who should be called to give evidence. We made every effort to see that they had the maximum possible notice, and that consideration was given to their convenience. We went into those matters very carefully. That is all the guidance I can give from my own experience.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 94.

Division No. 14.]
AYES
[4.5 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Archer, Peter (Warley, West)
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Banks, Robert


Ancram, M.
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Baker, Kenneth
Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)




Bell, Ronald
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Graham, Ted
Molloy, William


Biffen, John
Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector


Biggs-Davison, John
Grieve, Percy
Moonman, Eric


Blaker, Peter
Grist, Ian
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Grylls, Michael
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boscawen, Hon. Robert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Hamling, William
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)
Hampson, Dr. Keith
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)


Bray, Ronald
Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland


Brewis, John
Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Newton, Tony (Braintree)


Brown, Ronald (H'kney, S. &amp; Sh'ditch)
Hastings, Stephen
Nicholls, Sir Harmer


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hawkins, Paul
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Buck, Antony
Henderson, Barry (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Palmer, Arthur


Budgen, Nick
Hill, James A.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Bulmer, Esmond
Horam, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Burden, F. A.
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Surrey, E.)
Pendry, Tom


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Perry, Ernest G.


Campbell, Ian
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Carlisle, Mark
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Carmichael, Nell
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Ralson, Timothy


Carter, Ray
Hunt, John
Rathbone, Tim


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hurd, Douglas
Redmond, Robert


Channon, Paul
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Churchill, W. S.
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l,EdgeHill)
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)


Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ridsdale, Julian


Cocks, Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (B'ham, St'fd)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Conlan, Bernard
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull, W.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Cordle, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John


Corrie, John
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Critchley, Julian
Kaufman, Gerald
Royle Anthony


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Sainsbury Tim


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Anthony
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Shelton, William (L'mb'th, Streath'm)


Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shersby, Michael


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Knox, David
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'ctle-u-Tyne)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lamont, Norman
Silvester, Fred


Dixon, Piers
Lane, David
Sims, Roger


Dodos-Parker, Sir Douglas
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sinclair, Sir George


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Doig, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan
Small, William


Dormand J. D.
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Smith, Dudley (W'wlck &amp; L'm'ngton)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Le Merchant, Spencer
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Drayson, Burnaby
Lester, John (Beeston)
Spence, John


Dunn, James A.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)


Durant, Tony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtiand &amp; Stmford)
Sproat, lain


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Stanley, John


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Steen, A. D. (L'pool, Wavertree)


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Luce, Richard
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Farr, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fell, Anthony
McCrindle, R. A.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Macfarlane, Neil
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fidler, Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Tapsell, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John
Taverne, Dick


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McGuire, Marlln
Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh, N.)
Macmillan, Rt Hn. M. (Farnham)
Tebbit, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Thatcher. Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Ford, Ben
McNair-Wilsor, Patrick (New Forest)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn S.)


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tomlinson, John


Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol
Tomney, Frank


Fry, Peter
Maude, Angus
Townsend, C. D.


Gardiner, George (Reigate &amp; Banstead)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Tuck, Raphael


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mawby, Ray
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gilmour, Rt. Hn. Ian (Ch'sh'&amp;Amsh'm)
Mayhew, Christopher(G'wh, W'wch, E)
Urwin, T. W.


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mayhew, Patrick(RoyaIT'bridgeWells)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Golding, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Waddington, David


Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Gorst, John
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Gourley, Harry
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)







Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Walters, Dennis
Whitlock, William
Younger, Hn. George


Warren, Kenneth
Wiggin, Jerry



Watkins, David
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Weatherill, Bernard
Williams, A. L. (H'v'ring, H'church)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Weitzman, David
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Thomas Cox.


Wellbeloved, James
Wrigglesworth, Ian






NOES



Allaun, Frank
Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hatton, Frank
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Atkinson, Norman
Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're, E)
Sedgemore, Bryan


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hooley, Frank
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Bates, Alf
Hooson, Emlyn
Sillars, James


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Silverman, Julius


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Skinner, Dennis


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hunter, Adam
Snape, Peter


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Spriggs, Leslle


Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr' wich)
Kelley, Richard
Steel, David


Carson, John
Kinnock, Neil
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lamond, James
Stott, Roger


Clemitson, Ivor
Lestor, J. (Beeston)
Swain, Thomas


Cohen, Stanley
MacCormack, Iain
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Cryer, G. R.
McCusker, H.
Thorn, Stan (Preston, S.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S &amp; F'sb'ry)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tinn, James


Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)
Madden, M. O. F.
Torney, Tom


Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mendelson, John
Watt, Hamish


Edge, Geoff
Mikardo, Ian
Whitehead, Phillip


Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Ovenden, John
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Pardoe, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Evans, John (Newton)
Prescott, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


Flannery, Martin
Radice, Giles
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Reid, George
Woodall, Alec


Freud, Clement
Richardson, Miss Jo
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)



Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


George, Bruce
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. Russell Kerr and


Ginsburg, David
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. John Lee.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Rose, Paul B.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That the matter of the complaint made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Peterborough relating to statements made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw in a broadcast interview be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: I shall now give my ruling on the complaint concerning privilege that was made yesterday by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) arising out of a passage in the Sunday Times of last Sunday. Immediately after he had raised the matter I invited him to bring me a copy of the document to which he referred. He later provided me with a complete copy of the Sunday Times. I remind the House that the strict rule, which I hope will be observed in future, is that Members making a complaint based on the contents of a newspaper must hand in a complete copy of the paper at the time of making the complaint. Further, it is helpful if a Member gives notice to me of his intention to raise such a matter.
On the matter of the complaint of the hon. Member for Bolsover, I cannot find that it is of such a nature that I should permit a motion relating to the matter to be given precedence over Orders of the Day.

BILL PRESENTED

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr. Secretary Foot, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Edward Short, Mrs. Secretary Castle, Mr. Secretary Benn, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Edward Dell, and Mr. Albert Booth, presented a Bill to repeal the Industrial Relations Act 1971; to make provision with respect to the law relating to trade unions, employers' associations, workers and employers, including the law relating to unfair dismissal, and with respect to the jurisdiction and procedure of industrial tribunals; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 31.]

SAFETY PACKAGING FOR MEDICINES BILL

4.17 p.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it compulsory for all medicines which could be fatal to young children to have childproof opening devices fitted.
Every casualty officer in every hospital in Britain knows about the poisoned toddler syndrome. It is a contemporary problem because medicines today are infinitely more potent than ever before. Even 40 years ago some medicines were scarcely more than coloured water, which could do no harm and, thanks be to God and the power of auto-suggestion, often actually did some good. Today adult medicines are strong, effective, potent and almost invariably lethal to children if taken in quantity. They have never been so dangerous, they have never looked more tempting and some have never tasted so nice. One mother in Birmingham turned her back on her toddler for three minutes and the child swallowed a whole bottle of cherry-flavoured cough syrup. It contained enough anti-histamines and soporifics to pole-axe the child into a deep coma.
The Birmingham Evening Mail recently did a survey on accidental poisoning. It found that in 30 days 135 children had to be rushed to hospital suffering from poisoning. The vast majority were under seven years and many were only babies. Of course, with quick action such children are almost always saved. Most do not die but they all have to be treated. The most common treatment is the use of a stomach pump. Such treatment is a horrible experience, and doctors have warned recently that some children suffer long-term psychological disorders after the use of a stomach pump.
The official figure of child poisoning cases per annum is about 30,000 However, there is good reason to suppose that about 20,000 more do not get into the statistics because they do not go to hospital. It appears that instead they are treated by the family doctor. Indeed, some are only suspected poisoning cases. A child is found touching an open bottle and tablets are spilled around it. The

mother cannot get the child to give a coherent answer to whether he has swallowed any of the tablets. Even the suspected poisoning cases have to be treated, and often by stomach pump.
The most guilty medicine in the poison stakes is the aspirin. Some 85 per cent. of homes keep aspirins handy. One estimate is that at least five tons of aspirins disappear down British throats every day. They are all taken from bottles that can be unscrewed without the slightest trouble by very small hands.
There are children's aspirins, which are flavoured, which makes them pleasant to taste. One of the best known brands is Angiers Junior Aspirins. The tablets are orange in colour and the bottles contain about 50 tablets. Children's aspirins contain about a quarter of the adult dose. If a young child ate 30 it would be in danger and, indeed, might die as a result.
The next biggest single cause of death is psychotherapeutic drugs—sedatives, tranquillisers and so on. It is estimated that there are 7½ million packs of these in homes at any one time. Iron tablets, which are also commonly used, are also a hazard. I think that the House will accept that something needs to be done.
Several solutions have been suggested. One is the child-proof medicine cabinet, and about one quarter of our homes with children have lockable medicine cabinets, but surveys show that a much smaller proportion are actually used. The medicines which have to be taken regularly are often put in more handy places than the medicine cabinet. Besides, the majority of child poisoning cases happen when the household is disrupted, either by illness or when things are out of the normal position, perhaps because of visitors or father decorating or because mother has had to rush to answer the door.
Another suggested solution is to step up the campaign to educate parents to keep medicines out of a child's way. One slogan in this campaign is,
Throw away all old medicines".
That is fine and wise as far as it goes, but we now know that it is almost always the medicines currently in use which poison children and not so much the old medicines.
The third solution would be to direct the drug manufacturers to stop making medicines which look nice and taste nice. Like the other two suggested solutions, this is a thoroughly worthwhile idea but it still would not be effective enough to stem the flood of poisoned children into the casualty departments.
The fourth solution is one which I seek to implement in this small Bill. It is that all medicines which could be fatal to children should be packed in childproof or child-resistant containers. Medicines usually either come in bottles or small plastic drums or are individually packed in strip and blister containers made of plastic or foil. All of these could be made difficult or practically impossible for a child to open.
Of course, it will cost money, but however much the total—and I have tried hard to get a clear picture—it cannot be as much as it now costs to treat these sick children. To pack medicines in childproof containers would definitely mean a saving for the taxpayer, although I am more interested in the saving of children from danger, pain and misery.
The Government recently asked the chemists to consider charging for childproof containers where patients asked for them. The chemists turned the suggestion down—for one good reason, one poor reason and one wrong reason. They said that it was wrong to rest the safety of medicines on parents' ability to pay. That was the right reason. Secondly, they were not sure that the containers were really childproof anyway. That was a poor reason, because the United States has proved that it is not beyond the wit of man to produce containers which will totally baffle normal children, and has developed about 60 different ones.
Thirdly, the chemists said that they thought it best to continue with the campaign to educate public interest. That was the wrong reason. We can never do sufficient campaigning to ensure that all parents in all homes at all times will obey the campaign. A household gets disrupted; Tommy learns to climb the shelves; mother forgets to put the bottle back in its right place. A child needs to get hold of a bottle only once.
I am sure that the answer lies in legislation about safety packaging of

medicines. The United States has had such legislation since 1970, and it is being extended because its efficacy has been proved. Statistics from the United States and Canada show substantial reductions —90 per cent. and 75 per cent. in two instances—resulting from the mass use of safety containers.
Of course, there are problems—for example, the need to consider elderly or arthritic people who have difficulty in opening some tops now. But I am sure that these problems can be ironed out, as they have been elsewhere. Again, some children are poisoned not by medicines but by things like household cleaners, turpentine, and so on. I am confining the Bill's provisions to medicines because one cannot deal with everything in a Ten-Minute Bill, and in any case far more children are poisoned by medicines than by anything else. In the first two days of the Birmingham survey, out of 15 children who were saved 13 had got hold of boxes or bottles of medicine.
The Medicines Commission was consulted on this matter a year ago and set up a working party which will, according to the Secretary of State for Social Services in March, be reporting shortly. This Bill gives the working party the opportunity to do so. The matter is urgent and brooks no delay. Each day we wait, about 130 children will be poisoned. Dr. D. H. S. Reid, spokesman on poisoning for the British Paediatric Association, has written:
Whereas the law provides for the safety of children on the roads, at work and at play, the same law turns a blind eye, with the connivance and collusion of the drug and chemical industry at all levels, wholesale and distributive, to the situation. Efforts to secure a change in the law in this country by paediatricians, the Press, the Consumers Association, Members of Parliament and other bodies, have been resisted by successive governments, and the results in Britain have been depressing and discouraging.
I believe that the time has come when action cannot be further delayed, and I ask the House, in the name of countless suffering children, to clear the way for this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Jill Knight, Mr. Harold Gurden, Mr. E. S. Bishop, Mr. Clement Freud, Mr. Philip Holland, and Mr. Jeffrey Rooker.

SAFETY PACKAGING FOR MEDICINES

Bill to make it compulsory for all medicines which could be fatal to young children to have child-proof opening devices fitted; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th May, and to be printed. [Bill 32.]

Orders of the Day — CHANNEL TUNNEL BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.28 p.m.

The Minister for Transport (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her prerogative interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
As the House knows, this is an identical Bill to that which was before the last Parliament and received a Second Reading on 5th December 1973. It is not unusual, following a General Election, that this should happen, but perhaps it is somewhat unusual that today the new Government should be asking the House to give a Second Reading to a Bill against which, in Opposition, we voted on the previous occasion. Obviously, we had to consider our position on taking office regarding the Channel Tunnel project, and I am glad to say that my right hon. Friends took the view that I ventured to put when I was pressed by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) on 5th December. I said then:
In any event, when the next General Election comes, the treaty will have been signed, which was not the case when we debated the White Paper. As a new Government, we should have to pick up the situation as it was then and consider it then.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December 1973; Vol. 865, c. 1378.]
The Government's position was made clear about the Channel Tunnel project by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in his statement of 3rd April.
The Labour Party has never been opposed to the principle of the tunnel. Indeed the basic agreements to explore the possibility of a tunnel are still those of 1966, made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who was then Minister of Transport. Nevertheless, we have been unhappy about certain elements in the


scheme as it developed under the last Government, as we explained in the debates in the last Parliament. There is therefore in our view need for a full and searching reassessment of the project as a whole.
In particular the economic and financial assessments must be reviewed, particularly in the light of developments in the energy situation. Much of the work on reassessing the project in the light of developments is already in hand on behalf of all the partners in the project.
As we maintained in opposition, however, we feel it essential that there should be an independent element in the current review. The precise arrangements are still under discussion, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to appoint a small high-powered group of independent advisers not previously associated with the project. They will be asked to consider both the adequacy of the financial and economic assessments of the project and certain specific aspects of the scheme as it developed under the last Government. Their advice will be available while the studies are in progress, and while they will not, of course, be duplicating work already carried out or in hand on a satisfactory basis, additional work could be commissioned if that seemed desirable in the light of their comments. We shall make their views on the results of the economic and financial reassessment of the project generally available before Parliament is asked to consider whether the scheme should go beyond phase 2.

Mr. A. P. Costain: As the anti-Channel Tunnel group always held that there has not been an independent inquiry, would it be possible for it to give evidence before the inquiry so that it may feel satisfied that it is independent?

Mr. Mulley: It is not intended that we take up time with a formal inquiry. We have asked independent people to assess information and to seek additional information so that they can give an independent assessment. We do not have a great public inquiry in mind.

Mr. Peter Rees: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long the inquiry is likely to take, because this is a matter of great concern in East Kent

and many important decisions may have to be deferred until the result of the inquiry is known?

Mr. Mulley: With respect, this is not so because it is intended that the independent assessment should go along with the studies, which is what phase 2 is about. We shall not in any even have the information on which the House could take a decision until at the earliest the early months of next year. This has always been in the timetable which has been expounded since phase 1, and no change is envisaged as a result of the arrangements in the timetable set out and agreed with the French Government by the last administration.
Another major point for re-examiation is the balance between road and rail. There are, in particular, two elements. The first is what can be done to increase the through rail traffic and, secondly, will the growth of road ferry traffic, whether using the Tunnel or the sea ferries, be as great as indicated in the earlier forecasts which were made before the recent fuel crisis? I am already in touch with the chairman of the British Railways Board on the prospects for rail traffic and I look forward to a meeting as soon as possible to discuss these matters with the French Minister concerned.
There is also need to consider the impact the Channel Tunnel could have, especially after very high speed trains come into service during the 1980s, on the traffic for which we need to provide at the London airports. All this can be done during phase 2 without adding to the eventual cost of the works, if it is decided to complete the project in phase 3.

Mr. John Stanley: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point about encouraging further through rail traffic, can he confirm that he is including in the encompass of the review the provisions of the Anglo-French Treaty, in particular Article 8, which stipulates that the operating policy should be based on non-discrimination between road and rail?

Mr. Mulley: I am well aware of that provision. Had the hon. Gentleman been in the last Parliament he would have known that I referred to it myself on a number of occasions. This is one of the points I shall wish to discuss with my


French colleague. I am always willing to give way to hon. Members, but I hope that if I do so there will not be complaints if my speech is longer than usual. If I give way to hon. Members I shall not be able to accept responsibility for going on for 10 or 15 minutes longer than I would otherwise have to take.
If we are to keep the option open to complete the project we need to ratify the treaty by the end of 1974 and to have available all the powers needed before we could enter on Agreement No. 3 and the main works—phase 3—due in mid-1975. The Bill provides the necessary powers. If we are not able to ratify the treaty covering phase 2, signed on 15th November last, by 1st January next —or such later date as mutually agreed by the two Governments—the project is automatically treated as being abandoned. That is why the passing of the present Bill is an essential part of the process of keeping open the option to proceed while the further studies continue.
But this in no way prejudges the decision to be taken at the end of phase 2, as my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement of 3rd April. No such decision will be taken without putting the matter again before the House. It does not involve any additional commitment to the principle of the tunnel, nor as I shall try to explain does it involve any limiting commitment to features of the project which we are concerned to review.
The Channel Tunnel Bill is largely a technical measure which would enable the British Government to carry out their obligations under the treaty and agreements, if it is agreed that construction should be authorised. As I have explained, it needs to be passed now before a final decision can be taken, to avoid delay and to fulfil our treaty obligations. I must also add that it will be necessary for British Rail to continue urgently with the planning of the rail link to London on which it initiated detailed consultations three months ago and for which it will seek the necessary powers in a Private Bill which it hopes to present next November A new link is an essential element in the scheme as a whole. A tunnel able only to carry road traffic and such rail services as could be

got through the overcrowded Southern Region would not be acceptable to us. But no final decision on the route to be included in that railway Bill has yet been taken.
The present Government would wish to see some changes in the project. Some of these, for instance possible measures to increase through rail traffic, will not call for any change in the treaty, the Agreements or the Bill, but be purely internal matters while others, for instance over the details of financial arrangements, we may need to negotiate with our partners.
Any such changes could, however, be made within the general framework of the Bill and the treaty in the negotiations which must in any event be held prior to reaching Agreement No. 3. It is for that reason that it has been possible to take the course of reintroducing the Bill and thus, under the motion passed at the end of the last Parliament, to save both the complexities of complying with the Private Bill Standing Orders again and, more important, to save the costs of the existing petitioners. It would have been quite wrong if petitioners against a Bill had been put to additional expense because of the accident of the timing of the General Election, and I am advised that it would not have been possible to save their costs unless we reintroduced the Bill in exactly the same form as it had been when put before the last Parliament.
I should indicate certain amendments which we shall wish to make to the Bill, with the consent of the House, in Committee. Some of these are to increase the control of the local authorities over certain aspects of the design and method of execution of the works, while others are more technical.
There are, however, two gaps in the Bill as it stands. First, we propose to put an obligation on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider with the British Railways Board and the National Freight Corporation how best full advantage can be taken of the opportunities of the tunnel to divert traffic from road to rail. Secondly, while the Bill contains provisions about annual reports during the operation of the tunnel, there is no provision for regular reports to Parliament during the crucial construction phase of the project. I would wish this further provision to be made, too.
I hope that the House will agree, in view of the lack of time, that I should not go in great detail through the various clauses. I see present some hon. Members who will recall our previous debates. Part I and the bulk of the schedules provide for the necessary "land and works" powers. Clause 5 will require some amendment to increase local authority control over the works. Part II provides the framework of financial powers. The financial terms as between the public and private sectors, which we shall certainly wish to review in great detail before the renegotiations which are due to take place in 1975, are set out in Agreement No. 2. Under the Treaty and until it is ratified by an exchange of notes between the two Government, all liabilities falling on the Governments, for example in the event of abandonment, and all profits if the scheme is successfully completed, are shared on a 50–50 basis.
The maximum limits of the guarantee are the same as in the original Bill. There has been no change in the forecast cost of the tunnel in real terms, although this will be reviewed during phase 2. The out-turn cost will depend on rates of inflation and interest over the next six years. I should be reluctant to accept that the recent rates will continue throughout that period. Part III of the Bill establishes the British board as the British component of the Channel Tunnel Authority.
The provisions of this and Schedule 4 are based largely on existing nationalised industry statutes with such changes as are needed to allow for the binational nature of the project and the minority participation of the Channel Tunnel companies. Part IV contains a number of miscellaneous provisions. My hon. Friends will appreciate even more than Opposition Members the possible advantages of Clauses 33 and 34 which would enable construction of the tunnel to be continued should the present arrangements ever be abandoned. "Abandonment" is a technical phrase which can cover nationalisation. But while one Government can "abandon", it takes two to complete the tunnel.
If the Bill is passed this will keep our options open. The House is not now being asked to decide whether the tunnel should be built. That question will arise

only after the reassessment has been completed. Only the signature of Agreement No. 3 after Parliament has considered the outcome of our reassessment can initiate phase III and the main works. We hope that the revised traffic forecasts will be available at about the end of this year and our complete reassessment of the project in the early months of 1975. At that time, too, the financial terms will have to be renegotiated.
The results of the studies and the terms negotiated will be published. I give a categoric assurance to hon. Members that there will be an opportunity for the House to debate and vote on the project at that time before any commitment is undertaken to carry it forward into phase 3 and the main construction works. I ask the House to allow the Bill to go forward for detailed examination in Select and Standing Committees.

4.45 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I will follow the Minister in trying to be brief because I know that a large number of my Friends wish to speak. Many of their constituents are affected by this Bill.
There is another reason why I need not speak for too long. As the Minister pointed out, the Bill is the same as that introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), to whom I must pay tribute. He handled this subject magnificently while he was in power, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman will understand when I say I am sorry he could not see it through. The then Under-Secretary, Keith Speed, made a very clear introduction of the Bill on 5th December. We have only to read that to see what it is all about.
As an old parliamentarian—

Mr. Eric Ogden: Oh!

Mrs. Thatcher: As one who has been in this House for some considerable time, may I make a preliminary point. We all understand that the right hon. Gentleman may find himself in a little difficulty today. We have changed sides in this House and unfortunately there have been times when changing sides has appeared to change opinions. That is one of the things which has led to a certain amount of cynicism on the part of the public


towards politicians. I noted that last time we debated the matter the right hon. Gentleman said,
If I were now in a position to take this kind of decision I should not be recommending to the Government and the House that we proceed with the present tunnel plan as composed, or at this moment of time with any tunnel plan at all".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December 1973; Vol. 865, c. 1321.]
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's partial conversion and hope that in the end it will be a complete conversion. I am sure that he will begin to understand that this is one of the exciting big projects on the political agenda. We are going through a period in politics when it seems that all the exciting big projects are stopped and politics appears to have become about bread and cheese. There are more things in life than that. [Interruption.] Bread and cheese are also important but so are some of the more visionary ideas to the abilities and resourcefulness of our people.
The first issue I want to raise is that of compensation for those affected by works associated with the tunnel. One of the most encouraging things about the whole project has been the way in which Members whose constituencies are most affected have refused to be limited in their vision by a specifically parochial view but have been prepared to look at the wider national outlook. Part of this is due to the action taken by successive Governments, particularly the last one, to see that those whose properties and lives were affected should have generous compensation.
It is also due to the strenous efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil to see the people concerned, to meet points put to him and to meet hon. Members who care on behalf of their constituents. It is due, too, to the willingness of the companies concerned to help in these matters. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will continue this and will be anxious to see that those affected receive full and generous compensation.

Mr. Mulley: May I echo the right hon. Lady's tribute to her right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for the way in which he met local authorities and Members concerned. I will try to follow that lead.

Mrs. Thatcher: We are most grateful.
The White Paper said that the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 would apply to those whose property was to be affected by the proposals. Although that paragraph comes shortly after the paragraphs headed "The Railway Link and Installations", I understand there is some doubt as to whether the Act applies to railway works, since it was drafted with roadworks and airports in mind. May I ask the Minister specifically whether it does apply to the rail link, because that is obviously one of the most important questions for a number of my hon. Friends. Further, will the noise insulation regulations of 1973 apply? If not, will steps be taken to ensure that they do? This is particularly important for Members representing Kent and Surrey, where much land and property will be affected. My hon. Friends who represent Surrey and Kent constituencies, particularly my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), are very anxious about this.
I was a little confused by what the Minister said about the timetable. I do not see the timetable stretching ahead as clearly as he seems to see it. I understand that phase 2 ends in July next year, 15 months from now. The teams who are working on the project will want a decision whether the project will continue three or four months before that. We do not want the design and working teams on a big project like this wondering three or four months in advance whether the scheme has a future, so that we must have a decision at least a clear three or four months before the end of phase 2. That will bring the timetable back to about March.
In a statement made a few weeks ago the Secretary of State for the Environment said that the reassessment would be complete by the end of next summer. I challenged him on it at the time and asked whether that was time enough to make the reassessment, and the more I look at it the more it seems an insufficient time for making the sort of reassessment he had in mind.
I understood that the Secretary of State was to consider whether the existing traffic could be provided for by alternative means. There is not time for that to


be done and for a judgment to be made by the early months of next year. The treaty has to be ratified by 1st January. In the meantime we have to go ahead drafting Agreement No. 3, and that draft must be deposited by 1st April. Between those times we must have received the report from the independent consultants, considered it, debated it and made a decision upon it. Are we going to ratify the treaty before a final decision is made? When do we expect to make a final decision? Before doing so we must have time to consider the report.

Mr. Mulley: We need to ratify the treaty that was signed in November by 1st January so as to allow phase 2 to continue. If we do not do that the project is abandoned. That is why the Bill is so important. We do not—and under the treaty we cannot—have in mind any change in the timetable set by the previous Government. My hon. Friend in winding up the debate will deal with the complexities at greater length.

Mrs. Thatcher: My recollection is that the Conservative Government intended that the final decision should be made by about the time of the Third Reading of the Bill—although I may not be quite right about that. But there is this totally new factor of the reassessment. I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will give more details about what that reassessment includes. The Secretary of State was vague. His few words were more a cloak to what he meant than a revelation.
We should also like to know a little more about the road-to-rail orientation. The whole costing of the tunnel is based upon the rolling motorway as well as the rail concept. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman had rejected the rail-only link. If that part of the timetable can be sorted out I shall be grateful.
There are two matters about the British railways timetable which concern me. The first is the short-term timetable which particularly affects my hon. Friends who represent constituencies on the shores of the rail link. The right hon. Gentleman said, rightly, that no decision about the precise route had yet been taken. Of course it has not. The plans have been available to the people

affected only for a few weeks, and many have not yet seen them. We are worried about the shortness of the timetable. If the plans for the Private Bill are to be deposited by 1st November, the full details of every property affected will have to be worked out by about June. Remembering the summer holidays, that does not leave much time for the appropriate consultations, particularly as Surrey has produced a plan of four different routes. People will be alarmed if they feel that their interests are not being properly protected and that they are not to have full consultations before the decision is made. Some of my hon. Friends will need a great deal of reassurance on that.
On the longer-term British Railways timetable, is the right hon. Gentleman confident that the money made available by his Government to British Railways will be adequate and that British Railways will be able to construct the rail links in time? The treaty contains a penalty clause in Article 5.6.2 to the effect that, if neither road nor rail links are properly constructed by the date of the operation of the tunnel, the Government in default must pay to the authority a sum equal to the net loss of income to the authority resulting from the absence of the road or rail link. To settle the route, to have the capital sums made available and to get all the construction work completed within a six-year period is a large undertaking, and I should like to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is confident that it can be done.
In considering alternatives to the tunnel, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that Kent—with which I have had connections for many years—already has problems caused by the volume of traffic and heavy freight passing through it. It already urgently needs the requisite roads to be constructed. A great deal of expenditure will be needed whatever view is taken about the Channel Tunnel.
There are several reasons why the costs of any project may rise. First, they may rise because the design is substantially altered during the project. That happens with an unknown project in which new technologies are involved. One would not expect much of the design of the tunnel to be changed. There may be one or two minor variations arising from


the technical work that is now being done on the tunnel, but no substantial design alterations. There may also be one or two decisions which we cannot yet cost on the design of the rolling stock, but I do not believe that many increases will come from the alteration of the design of the project.
Secondly, there may be increases in cost because of insufficient allowance for contingencies. Sufficient allowance for these has probably been made in this project.
The third reason is the difficult one. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the real cost, which is the usual convention by which we cost projects in which the Government have a hand. There could be differences in the out-term cost because of the level of inflation used in the calculations. That level is just as much a decision for the Government to take as those connected with the project, and the Government must be prepared to take it, if we are to get a realistic cost assessment. I say that, knowing how difficult it is to take an economic view in these matters for any length of time ahead as the economic climate changes so quickly. If we are in difficulties about the precise out-turn cost, this is one of the reasons for it.
I understand that there is a new assessment of the cost of the project amounting to £970 million, based on the following three factors—a higher construction cost escalation averaging 8·5 per cent. per annum, compared with the former figure of 7 per cent.; a higher interest rate during the construction and the remuneration period averaging 10 per cent. per annum, compared with the previous figure of 9 per cent.; and a delay of three months in the completion of the construction. Any delay is very expensive in terms of cost. On that basis the total estimate is £970 million. Therefore, I hope that before a final costing is reached, the Government will make it clear that they understand and agree with the levels of inflation put into the actual projections. This does not mean that they are committed to this level of inflation; indeed we hope that it will come down.
When all those assumptions have been made and the sets of figures calculated,

the Government will have at last to come to a final, positive decision. I believe that will have to be well before Easter next year. I hope that there will be no question of putting off the decision by the classic method of having further inquiries. In the end that process turns out to be a way of saying "No" by a slow strangulation process. I believe that between January and Easter next year we shall have to take the decision and that the facts from the new assessment will have to be available by that time.
It is possible that the Bill may be obtained this side of a General Election. It is also possible that it will be a question of "third time lucky" for the introduction of this Bill. If that is the case, then I should like the Minister to know that I shall not adopt his tactics in any way. I shall be as happy to support the Bill in opposition as we were to support it when we were in government—and the same will apply when our places are reversed.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The last time I spoke on this Bill I was standing where the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was standing just now when making her contribution to the House. I do not intend to make precisely the same speech as she made, but I hope the House will forgive me if I make roughly the same speech as I made on that previous occasion.
In the last Parliament I was among those who were extremely sceptical about this Bill. I still remain extremely sceptical about the whole project. I say that, not just because I happen to be a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union which is opposed to Britain going ahead with this project, but because I believe that the Bill, even in its present form, leaves a variety of important questions unanswered. Some of the most important questions which have not yet been answered were neatly subsumed in a recent article by Bernard Levin in The Times. He thought it incredible that after all the arguments on cost advanced in 1962 and 1963 about the Concorde project, we should now, more than 10 years later, be using almost all the same arguments about the Channel Tunnel.

Mr. Ogden: rose—

Mr. Huckfield: The interesting argument that is now being advanced against Concorde is that the Channel Tunnel is in some way supposed to be known technology, but I am sure the Minister realises that even if we go ahead with phase 2 that will reveal about 8 per cent. of the geology of the tunnel. It will not reveal any more than that. I would not have thought that a revelation of less than 8 per cent. of the geological difficulties of the tunnel would be enough to enable one to say that the technology is known.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will take into account the fact that similar arguments were advanced before the boring of the Mont Blanc tunnel. The Mont Blanc project turned out to involve a cost escalation amounting to 250 per cent. In other words, I think that the Channel Tunnel project, despite all the advocacy by its friends who say that it involves known technology, involves some very dubious technology, since we shall be embarking on a tunnel of 32 miles in length, a tunnel of a size that has not before been attempted.

Mr. Ogden: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend after he has spoken for only one and a half minutes, although he has managed to be controversial even in that short time. At least he and I are consistent in our views. Will my hon. Friend accept that he has changed the wording? The technology of a tunnel is not to be compared with the technology of Concorde. What he is complaining about is not unknown technology, but unknown geology.

Mr. Huckfield: I hope that we shall be using some technology to overcome that geology. Therefore, I think that technology is involved. We were in precisely the same difficulties when I last addressed the House on this topic.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport has not yet said what his railway policy is to be. We do not know the results of his consideration of British Rail's investment submission, nor do we know whether the Railways Board is to get the money for which it has asked. Furthermore, we do not know what my right hon. Friend or one of his other ministerial colleagues will do about the

report of the Monopolies Commission on ferry prices.
We have heard a few hints in the Sunday Times that the ferries could afford to reduce their prices and that that monopoly is against the public interest, but we do not know the precise extent of that reduction, nor do we know when the Minister will carry it out. It is important to bear in mind, as the Channel Tunnel Opposition Association has shown, that in the present level of ferry prices in terms of the Channel there has been a 74 per cent. excess capacity factor over the year as a whole. If a transport system has been in operation with that sort of excess capacity figure over a year, that is an argument, not for building a tunnel, but for changing the pricing policy of the ferries.
We have still not learned from all the forecasting lessons of Maplin. In terms of the Maplin projections we have now learned that each forecast was more accurate than the last. It was the Channel Tunnel forecasts, retrodictive as they were, which shed more accurate light on Maplin than did the Maplin statistics and forecasts themselves. Perhaps in their review of the Maplin project the Government will forecast more accurately the situation on the Channel Tunnel project.
There has been an increase in oil prices since this legislation was last debated. Furthermore, there has since that time been an aviation fuel surcharge and there are more changes to come. I am surprised that we are talking about an out-turn cost of only £970 million. If we examined the old figures, we might have then made an assumption that if the rate of exchange of the pound were stable, if there were no unforeseen design problems or changes in specification, no increase in world interest rates, which is a somewhat unlikely supposition, and if we could somehow bring down the rate of inflation to 5 per cent.—a considerable achievement for any Government, particularly in the Western world—then in making those assumptions on the last proposed figure I think that we could have forecast that the total outturn would have been at least £1,020 million. I have not revised upwards all those assumptions for the new estimate of £970 million, but I venture to suggest that, even making all those assumptions, based on the new figure of £970 million, we are already


talking about a total of £1,200 million. That excludes the cost of the railway link.
I do not know whether the Minister is still saying that the cost of the railway link is only £120 million, but if the right hon. Member for Finchley is seeking to press her claims, as I hope she will, in respect of soundproofing, and so on, regarding the Land Compensation Act, I suggest that the cost of the railway link will be more than £120 million, particularly as there are now a stream of objections, and rightly so, from those areas which will be affected.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend is talking about some independence of analysis of the figures. I do not wish to cast any aspersions on Messrs. Cooper Brothers but it has to be remembered that they are the business advisers of Rio Tinto-Zinc, which has a 20 per cent. interest in the British Channel Tunnel Company, that they are also business advisers of the British Channel Tunnel Company, and that they are also the joint auditors, with Messrs. Spicer and Pegler, of Rio Tinto-Zinc. What is more, Rio Tinto-Zinc is getting half the old management fee of £37 million, and we may have increased that for all I know. If my right hon. Friend suggests that all those people in Messrs. Cooper Brothers do not occasionally talk to one another, I find that difficult to accept. I am not impugning the integrity of Cooper Brothers, but it is rather more than coincidence that we have the same firms not only involved in the construction of the project but doing most of the surveys as well. I am glad that my right hon. Friend intends to introduce some independence of analysis into these calculations.
Then I echo the criticism that I made when I last spoke on the subject. It seems to me that whatever happens—whether the project does not go ahead or whether the Government suddenly chicken out—the private companies will be all right. They cannot lose. I wonder what will happen if the combined out-turn rises to something like £2,000 million. Based on the old estimate of £846 million, shall we see the taxpayer having to be prepared to stand by as guarantor to a fixed loan debt of £1,915 million? That is what would happen if, based on

the old figure of £846 million, the out-turn rose to £2,000 million. Although the taxpayer may not have to pay out that money—although in certain circumstances he may—it is still a very substantial risk to ask him to bear, especially as the Government in the fixed interest market at the moment are already borrowing more than £4,000 million, despite the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce that amount of Government borrowing.
Then there will be the effect of that gigantic fixed interest borrowing on the bond market. I do not know what effect it will have on the rate of interest or on bond prices, but the effect that it has on the rate of interest and on bond prices again will upset some of the stable calculations which I fancy my right hon. Friend's Department has made in the past.
The hon. Member said that as the treaty with France stands there can be no discrimination between transport modes. I feel rather sorry for British Railways. They will have only a 4·7 per cent. stake in the British Channel Tunnel Company, whereas Rio Tinto-Zinc will have a 20 per cent. stake and most of the bankers a 6 per cent. or a 10 per cent. stake. In other words, the British Railways stake is a pretty measly one.
Then again, the operating authority will make its maximum profit not from straight-through trains but from roll-on, roll-off vehicle ferries. In other words, the operating authority is relying on a 75 per cent. transfer of cars with passengers to get the kind of profit projections forecast. If the company is relying for its success upon more and more rolling motorway traffic, how will the railways come off in these calculations? If my right hon. Friend is now saying that he will look at the project to see whether it can be made more railway-oriented does that mean that he will try to interfere with the terms of the treaty which says that there can be no discrimination? If my right hon. Friend is saying that we shall discriminate in favour of the railways he may then be affecting the profitability of the project. If he does not intend to interfere with discrimination between transport modes he may then be effectively discriminating in the end against the railways.
The Government will be the implementing body for the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission. The Government are responsible for international air fares, because the Civil Aviation Authority is responsible only for domestic air fares. In those circumstances I cannot see how they can be one of the operators, one of the referees and one of the arbiters. They seem to be prosecution, judge, jury and everything else rolled into one.
If the Channel Tunnel is to be a freely operating authority without discrimination between transport modes it will be anti-rail. If the Government tell the authority to discriminate in favour of railways they will not only go against the treaty but also be perhaps forcing a lower profitability on the operating authority. I hope that we shall hear a little about that before the end of the debate.
I am bound to say that, although the Government themselves may not be having to raise the money in the bond market because they are in the main a guarantor, we do not seem to have heard about the resource cost or the opportunity cost of the project. The White Paper says that even if we added Maplin to the Channel Tunnel and then took account of dockland development—the resurrection of life in the East End of London—together they would amount only to 11 per cent. of new construction and 5¼ per cent. of labour resources in the South-East. I believe that even one of those projects has at least a resource cost or an opportunity cost of that magnitude and that if we are still to go ahead with parts of Maplin or with the revivication of London's dockland, and if we are to add the Channel Tunnel, I fear for housing in the South-East, for hospital construction and for school building, because the labour resources and the capital will not be there. What I ask, in other words, is whether the Government's opportunity cost calculation is correct or whether it ought to be revised once again.
When the project was last discussed in this House the precise environmental advantages of it were very much put under the microscope. Hon. Members on both sides of the House feared that the whole of Kent might become a gigantic lorry park. Unless my right hon. Friend can see some way of getting lorries and cars on the trains in London the roll-on roll-off ferries and the cars will go to Cheriton

and get on the ferries there. I know that my right hon. Friend is talking about augmenting rail links and about extending the M20, but traffic will naturally gravitate towards Cheriton because the tendency will be to join the rolling motorway at Cheriton and not in London.
My right hon. Friend may have to consider very seriously ways even of discriminating with the use of variable rail fares to try to get cars and lorries to join trains at the White City, Nine Elms or wherever. If he does not, I fear for the people of Kent and the areas through which the links will pass, not just because of the railway line but because of the increase in road traffic.
I am sceptical about the so-called environmentally beneficial nature of the project, and I cannot help returning to the point that I have always made about it. Surely it is better to wait till the total transport strategy of this Government has evolved before counting on the way in which the tunnel will be beneficial. Are we to bring in quantity licensing? Are we to incorporate more statutory duties to transfer traffic to the railways with the National Freight Corporation? Are we to subsidise private rail sidings? Shall we have any success with the 100 firms which my right hon. Friend is asking to transfer traffic back to rail?
It will be the results of the Government's overall transport policy which will determine whether the Channel Tunnel is to be road or rail oriented. A fixed link will tie us far too inextricably to a certain very small part of Europe, whereas many of us would like to see trading links open up with Eastern Europe and the much wider horizon there.
I cannot help thinking that we are still rather enamoured with projects of national prestige that will not contribute very much to our economic growth. Even if the project has a multiplier effect, that multiplier effect will be in the South-East, not in the South-West or in Scotland where the growth is needed.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Hear, hear.

Mr. Huekfield: I am glad that I have the hon. Lady with me for a change.
Ought we not to be thinking more urgently and seriously in priority terms about pensions and concentrating all our


efforts on bringing back the school building programme that was cancelled by the previous Government? Ought we not to be thinking about renewing district general hospitals throughout the country? These projects should be far nearer and dearer to our hearts than going ahead with a Channel Tunnel which could become a monumental fire hazard—a 32-mile coffin, as it has been described— whose profitability is subject to a great deal of doubt, whose escalation in cost could make Concorde's escalation look very small indeed, and whose environmental benefits are doubtful.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Alan Clark: I should like to declare a personal interest in this topic. The Saltwood Estate, which is owned by my family's trustees, borders the area designated for the exit of the tunnel. That means that the land on the Saltwood Estate offers substantial possibilities for "reclamation", which is the fashionable term now used. However, I do not propose to speak on either the commercial or the environmental aspects of the topic. In principle I assure the House that I am opposed to the tunnel—but not from apprehension on my part that I shall break my leg reclaiming the land affected.
I ask the House to bear with me on the first occasion I have had the privilege of addressing it as I must pay a number of tributes to my predecessors. The musical chairs played by the Boundary Commission within the City of Plymouth places this obligation on me, and I shoulder it gladly.
First, I should remind the House of the virtues of my immediate predecessor, now the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Dr. Owen). I had not long been a candidate in the City of Plymouth before realising the sincere respect in which he was held by constituents of all parties within the division.
I think that the House will also wish me to mention another of my predecessors in the City of Plymouth, Dame Joan Vickers, who represented Devonport before the former Member for Plymouth, Sutton—representing which constituency is a privilege that I now enjoy—moved across and contested the seat at Devon-port. Dame Joan was truly a representa-

tive who brought real meaning to the now somewhat degraded term "community politics". She was an ideal constituency member and the affection in which she is held by the people of Plymouth spread through the whole city, by no means being confined to the division that she represented here. The House will recall that she was also a strong feminist.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Hear, hear.

Mr. Clark: I am not quite certain what this entails. I take it to be a somewhat gentler form of Women's Lib.
Speaking of feminism compels me to mention perhaps my most distinguished predecessor in the Sutton Division, Lady Astor. Out of curiosity I consulted HANSARD to see what Lady Astor said in her maiden speech. She referred at great length to the subject of drink and expressed the view and the conviction that within 25 years none of the hon. Members sitting here would be drinking. I see no evidence that her conviction is gathering any weight. Indeed, I assure the House that I do not share Lady Astor's views on drink or, indeed, on women if it comes to that.
The City of Plymouth has many claims and attributes to which I should like to draw the attention of the House, but in the interests of celerity I will confine myself to a few. Plymouth is the largest industrial city in this country with a clean air policy. Whether this bears any relation to the fact that rather more than 60,000 of its population voted Conservative and fewer than 50,000 voted Labour at the election I do not care to suggest. However, it is the largest and most successful example of a clean air city in the British Isles.
Plymouth has certain historical connections with which the House is familiar. Drake played bowls there and the Pilgrim Fathers set sail from the city. I suppose it was a good thing that the Pilgrim Fathers arrived and it was clearly a good thing that they set sail.
There is one historical attribute of which I am not so proud—it was the only Roundhead city in the South West at the time of the Great Rebellion.
The House will recall the fervent and eloquent speech made by the Secretary of State for Employment on the occasion of


the Loyal Address and his stated affection for Roundheads. Indeed, I recall that he mentioned the possibility of a Roundhead Commission to look into the Industrial Relations Act. I leave the House to judge whether the reference to the notorious regicides in the context of what is a traditional and well-accepted constitutional practice is courteous.
The right hon. Gentleman, who, we are often told, has a keen sense of history and reads many books, should know that the Roundheads were the party of the small businessman and the small property owner. I have no doubt that small businessmen and small property owners will be glad that they have so distinguished an advocate of their interests as the Secretary of State for Employment. I am sure that they can look to him for protection against those same elements which threatened the small businessman and the small property owner at the time of the Great Rebellion—namely, the encroaching monopoly power of bureaucracy and taxation—and can look to him to protect them against the monopoly power of the trade unions.
I do not wish to make any critical sounds about hon. Gentlemen opposite on this occasion, so I will conclude my tributes by referring to the Secretary of State for Employment who began his parliamentary career, as have so many distinguished parliamentarians, as the representative for Plymouth, Devonport. Perhaps the strongest claim that the right hon. Gentleman has, which everybody accepts, is his great affection and respect for the institution of Parliament. I submit that the subject we are scrutinising particularly calls for the vigilance of Parliament.
I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) and I share his scepticism about the whole project. I suggest that the House should always be on its guard against any project which comes before it with the universal approbation of the multinational corporations, the international banking fraternity and the whole of the Civil Service. If those elements are united in approving a subject, there are few barriers left to prevent it from being imposed on the British people, except for the House of Commons.
There are many people outside and, I suspect, many in the House, who share a

certain apprehension at the mention of that corporation to which the hon. Member for Nuneaton drew the attention of the House, namely, Rio Tinto-Zinc. I suggest that it has a certain notoriety as a polluter of the environment for gain, and I have heard it referred to as the godfather of British industry. I use the term "godfather" in the Mafia rather than in the Christian sense.
The particular aspect of the subject to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is that of defence. This is, or should be, the first consideration which the House should apply to any project which may affect defence, yet sadly, we hear little of the subject in the House these days. It seems to me that a fundamental breach is threatened to one of our primary natural attributes. The English Channel has always protected us from invasion, and it is untrue that technological advances have altered the basic principles which should govern our defence strategy.
The nuclear deterrent has become so incredible that the possibility of conventional warfare becomes increasingly acute, and if it comes at all it will be of the blitzkreig lightning strike kind. It would be feasible for a parachute attack to seize the tunnel head and defend it for a long enough period for an invader to pass through the tunnel and thus completely bypass the natural protection that has defended this country for 1,000 years.
I ask hon. Members not to treat this matter lightly, because history provides a number of examples of lightning strikes on tactical objectives, with great success. One recalls Rotterdam, Nijmegen, Remagen and Corinth, all in the last war. The attacks took place at great speed, before the defenders were prepared, and the hostile parachute forces were established before it was possible to evict them.
I was concerned, upon making inquiries prior to the debate, to find that no provision had been made to guard against that kind of attack and that the subject does not even seem to have been considered. I urge the House to ensure that a proper fail-safe system is installed, not locally controlled but controlled from whatever headquarters is provided, so that if the tunnel is built it can be demolished instantly if the need arises.
When I talk in terms of security I am referring not to sabotage, blackmail, hijacking or individual acts of lunacy or terrorism, but to a special and fundamental aspect of the traditional defence of the British Isles, and I earnestly ask the House to bear that in mind if the Bill ever comes to a more solid foundation than it has now.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) on his clear, interesting and amusing speech. The hon. Gentleman represents a beautiful city which I frequently use as a base for touring Cornwall, which I do not by motor car but by train. I take one of the £2 runabout tickets, which enables me to visit many parts of Cornwall from Plymouth.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned drink. I am surprised that he did not refer to the local drink, which I think is called scrumpy. I had only a pint, and it was fortunate that I was a railway traveller because I struggled into the nearest compartment and slept all the way to Truro. One thing I learned is that scrumpy is not to be drunk carelessly.
I agree with the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) when she says that this is a national project and it should not be dropped. The right hon. Lady's reasons for saying that were national, and she rightly said that financial accountancy should not be the only thing to be considered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield), however—inadvertently I think—made one of the strongest cases that can be made for the tunnel. He spoke about the unknown geology of the area. My hon. Friend must realise that Britons were pioneers in geological science, which started in the 1830s. The country to follow much later was France, and between the two countries the geological strata underlying the Channel is probably better known than that under any other channel in the world.
The strata under the Channel are chalk and are almost ideal for the boring of a tunnel. It may be that there are one or two faults about which the geologists do not know, but I do not think that my

hon. Friend could find a geologist who was not fairly confident about the structure of the Channel bed, and it is strange that he should speak about the geology of the area being unknown.
Constructing a tunnel under the Channel would not be similar to building a tunnel from Hokkaido to Honshu in Japan. That would be much more difficult, would require a much longer construction, and would be in much deeper water. Building a tunnel under the Channel would give rise to no technological difficulties. After all, we have been building tunnels for a long time, and the problems here are not in the same class as the unknown technology of Concorde.
I congratulate the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley on supporting the tunnel project now that she is in opposition. The only debate is on whether the project will pay its way. Up until this year the conclusions of the experts were favourable, but now the conclusions are in question. It is arguable whether the tunnel will pay its way, but the fact that it is arguable makes it much more promising than so many other national projects which we know will fail to pay their way. This project is immensely important for the prosperity and social welfare of the whole country.
What we must remember about the tunnel is that it is a project which concerns transport infrastructure. There must be hundreds of cases throughout the country which have been accepted without anyone questioning the accountancy involved. Many bridges, and, indeed, tunnels have been built though it has been known that they will not pay their way in terms of revenue. To come a little nearer home, it was well known that the underground Victoria Line, which was completed a few years ago, would never pay its way. In fact, the Government provided 75 per cent. of the capital cost involved.
It is also well known—and this is especially true of the more remote areas —that many of the roads that are constructed cannot hope to pay their way in terms of strict accountancy. Why, therefore, is there a different attitude to the Channel Tunnel?

Mr. Huckfield: I am sure my hon. Friend knows that the Victoria Line was


the subject of one of the most exhaustive social cost benefit studies undertaken of any transport project in this country. One of the social benefits was supposed to be the alleviation of congestion on certain roads on the surface. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the same kind of alleviation would be obtained in the case of a tunnel competing against a ferry system only 25 per cent. of whose capacity is used?

Mr. Atkins: I will come to that point in a moment. My hon. Friend is talking about social benefits—something which he did not apply to the tunnel. He was more concerned with the narrow accountancy. We are concerned with social benefits and, indeed, economic benefits—benefits to the trade of this country.
I should like to mention in particular the question of trade. Many countries are trying to find a means of legitimately increasing exports, and I feel that the tunnel will do this. Before the commencement of the Common Market one of the great disadvantages which countries on the mainland of Europe had was that trade between them had to cross tariff barriers. In one way we had certain advantages when we were trading with European countries which had seaboards, because we could export directly to those seaboards.
When the EEC was started, Continental member countries stood to gain much more than we did from the abolition of tariff barriers, but the position today is very different. Those tariff barriers have been abolished and Britain is at a disadvantage in trading with Europe. Britain has that disadvantage because a double transhipment of goods which is involved when we send traffic by sea is expensive and it takes a long time. The advantage of the tunnel is that we shall get the physical benefits which the Continental countries already have. In my view, the tunnel will do more for European trade with Britain than the Common Market itself. One of the advantages of this through traffic is that we can send sealed containers from the north of Scotland to eastern Europe.

Mr. Huckfield: We can do it now.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I am hoping to get into this debate myself, but, in

case I do not succeed, may I say that in Scotland we have an alternative to this whole project, namely, the Ocean Span, a plan which would containerise across the narrow waistline of Scotland, with much greater advantages.

Mr. Speaker: May I say that that sort of intervention might be counterproductive.

Mr. Atkins: I thought the hon. Lady was about to suggest a tunnel from Aberdeen to the Hague, under the North Sea—again for the social benefit of Scotland. I believe the important point is the community benefit which would come from the tunnel. It would be very considerable indeed. Whether we are inside or outside the Common Market, the tunnel with its long freight hauls will do much more for British trade than even the Common Market.
There is no doubt that this tunnel will be of enormous benefit to British Rail. I was very surprised to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton doubts about whether traffic should be diverted from road to rail, because I can remember him supporting this principle of the Transport Act 1968. This tunnel is consistent with everything that we have said about that Act. I feel—British Rail knows this, and that is one reason why it strongly supports the tunnel—that it will enable British Rail to handle long freight hauls.
One of the great disadvantages from which British Rail suffers is the fact that the area of this country is so limited that of necessity so many of the freight hauls are short—less than 50 miles—and everybody knows that freight hauls of less than 50 miles are uneconomic. The great continental railways, in America, Russia and Europe, have a great advantage in long continental hauls. This will be possible with the Channel Tunnel. It will be possible to send freight trains from Britain right through to Naples by means of the tunnel. I agree that at the moment there is some through traffic, but it is at a great disadvantage compared with freight trains which are entirely land hauled. British Rail is a strong supporter of the scheme because it appreciates the benefits it will receive. It will also mean that British Rail will be greatly helped by the tunnel in its struggle to get more freight.
In the matter of congestion I acknowledge that if we have a single loading unit, or only two or three loading units, in the South of England, it will increase congestion when all the road traffic, certainly the motorised traffic, has to come down to the South of England to go through the tunnel. There is a lot to be said, especially in the regions—Scotland, Wales and so on—for having a number of loading units throughout the country so that all regions can share in the prosperity which the tunnel will bring. I agree that to have just one loading point as recommended, I believe at Cheriton, would be a serious mistake. There is a lot to be said for a rail-oriented tunnel. I would not bother too much about what France says because the French are very inconsistent anyway.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton asked whether we would have subsidised or State-run sidings. They have such sidings in France. The subsidy which the French Government pay to the French railways amounts to £500 million a year. The same sort of thing happens in Germany where I think the figure is £600 million a year. The French could hardly complain that we were showing favour to rail as against road when their policy is what it is. Therefore, I hope that we shall have the tunnel.
I congratulate the right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley on being consistent, but I hope that it will be possible for the benefits of the tunnel to be spread throughout the country by having a number of loading units in different regions.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Having had an opportunity to speak on this matter on earlier occasions, I intend to delay the House for only a very short time, which I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to hear.
First, I must congratulate my constituent, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark), on his maiden speech. It is always a thrill for any Member of Parliament to hear a constituent make his maiden speech. It was not a surprise that he should have referred to the question of defence. After all, he lives in one of the castles of England which defended us against the French for

generations. His illustrious father could tell the House much more of the history of the castle than I could. I welcome him to the House. He was good enough to declare an interest, in that his family own a good deal of property in Saltwood, and he was quite independent in the way in which he approached the problem.
During the last General Election campaign, about eight weeks ago, my Labour opponent came out strongly on the tunnel. He said that the only thing to do with the plans and the information on the tunnel was to pulp the lot and to sell it as waste paper. At the time that that was said, I knew that his party would not follow that example, but he would not believe it. The Minister has gone one better. He has taken the Bill from the waste paper basket and produced it to the House.
I congratulate the Minister on the amendments that he is proposing to make to the Bill. The first gives local authorities greater power to have a say in the planning. That is precisely the matter on which my local authority brought forward petitions. It will be delighted to know that its petitions have already been accepted. The Minister also put forward the idea originally, when in Opposition, of a rail-only tunnel. But once he got hold of the facts and realised that a rail-only tunnel would probably be the worst of all worlds, as soon as he has come to power he has offered a different opinion.
I have always said that my job is to defend, as far as is practicable, the amenities of my area and the interests of my constituents. Six years ago I told the House that my constituents at that time had had over eight years of indecision about the tunnel and could not get any sort of planning consents. I am now faced with a situation in which people who have houses near Cheriton, and particularly Newington, cannot sell their property. One particular case of hardship worries me immensely because the health of the whole family is being affected.
Will the Minister give the assurance which his predecessor gave, that when the Bill receives the approval of the House he will undertake to look most sympathetically, using the maximum powers that the Bill gives him, at matters affecting the payment of compensation? It is


quite intolerable that this situation should have continued for so long.
We now have the benefit of the petitions which have been submitted by the local authorities, by my local authority of Shepway and by Kent County Council, and by the amenities societies. In Select Committee and in Standing Committee we shall have an opportunity of debating this matter further, so I shall not delay the House.
I welcome the support which I am receiving from other hon. Members in defending Cheriton from excess traffic. But when talking about the concentration of traffic at Cheriton and saying that that must be avoided, will the Government bear in mind the problems that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) and I have —the problems of traffic which is concentrated in the towns? Only last week I spent an afternoon at Folkestone Harbour and visited all the installations there. A year ago we were worried about the fact that there would be over 200 juggernaut lorries going to the harbour every week, but I was told last week that the figure has already reached 1,000.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) said that the ferry service was used to only 25 per cent. of its capacity. That is a most misleading figure. He was referring to an overall pattern, for the whole year. The hon. Gentleman mentioned ship capacities. He said that the ships were not full during all months of the year and that there is spare capacity. But the facts are that the bottleneck is not in the ships. The ships can be built and harbours can be expanded. The bottleneck is in the roads of the twin towns of Dover and Folkestone. We cannot expect them to continue to take a load for which they were never designed. Folkestone Harbour was designed primarily for rail-only passenger traffic. It takes a certain amount of goods traffic, even traffic to India, but Folkestone was never designed to take juggernaut lorries travelling through the narrow streets.
That is the problem. When considering capacities we must consider not only the capacity of the vessels but the capacity of the streets. I promised that I would speak for only a few minutes. I hope that the Minister will give me the assurance for which I ask.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: When the Secretary of State made his announcement on 3rd April, I said that I, as a very new Liberal Party spokesman, was glad that he was proceeding with the reintroduction of the Bill. I now rather regret those words—but I find that I am in good company from looking back through HANSARD. While it is true that the Liberal Party supports in principle the idea of a Channel Tunnel, and is still strongly in favour of a rail-only tunnel and opposed to the idea of a rolling motorway, principally on the grounds of cost and environmental damage, what concerns us most is the apparent rejection by the Secretary of State of his former line of thinking and the absence of any firm commitment to the appointment of a British Rail representative to the British board. There is also the greatly increased public concern at the cost and effect of the whole project.
I have taken the time to read the debates—not all of them, but certainly those which took place in the House on 25th October and 5th December. I accept that the matter has been very fully debated. I do not intend to go over any of the familiar ground again. But one can only express surprise that the Minister has decided to proceed on exactly the same lines as his predecessor.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) has left the Chamber, but I should like to quote his words in winding up for the Opposition on 5th December. Before doing that, I should like to thank him for his interesting contribution to-day. He stuck to his line, and that is very much to be commended. When advising his hon. Friends to oppose the Bill, he said that he did not think it to be a matter which could be undertaken along the lines of the Channel Tunnel Bill and called for a very serious and impartial re-examination of the whole project. The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), now the Minister for Transport, spelled out the fears of the objectors when he made the point that a substantial body of people concerned with the viability of the scheme, the nature of the tunnel and, most important of all, the share in the project for British Rail, would not be able to test its viability by the process


of cross-examination and production of witnesses in a manner which would have been open to them had we been having a public inquiry.
We on the Liberal Bench—I am on my own at present, although there are not many hon. Members on the Government Benches—accept the point made by the Secretary of State, that by reintroducing the Bill he is preventing the costs that have been incurred already by petitioners from proving abortive. But he appears to have forgotten the wording of his motion of 25th October last, when, incidentally, he was dismissing the rolling motorway scheme. He then demanded an independent inquiry into alternative transport strategies, including a rail-only tunnel. It is this objective study, held under entirely independent auspices, that we consider should have preceded any reintroduction of this Bill.

Mr. Mulley: What the hon. Gentleman must understand is that if the Bill does not go through, the scheme is abandoned. The difficulty is rather like that of the country yokel who was asked by someone to tell him the best way to X. He said, "If I were going to X, I would not start from here." It is true that we should have preferred not to start from the point from which, as a Government, we had to start. But since the October debate and the motion, the treaty has been signed, and that is obviously an obligation. The time-scale to which the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) referred was agreed with our French partners before we became a Government.

Mr. Ross: I took that point from the Minister's introductory speech. However, I still believe that there is time for such an inquiry to be held. We say that that should have happened, however inconvenient and costly it turned out to be. As it is, all that is being offered is a further period during which the petitions against the Bill will be allowed, coupled with a promise that British Railways will be holding a series of public meetings along the line of the proposed rail link. This is not good enough, particularly in the light of all that has happened, some of which was referred to by the hon. Member for Nuneaton, since the White Paper was published last year.
For instance, only this week there has been the article in the Accountants Weekly by Mr. Desmond Crowley, under the headline—
Coopers find themselves at centre of Chunnel wrangle"—
and commenting on the limited rôle played by Messrs. Cooper Brothers and referring to the
plethora of estimates coming from several sources
in this country and in France. Mr. Crowley concludes that no harm could he done by
a short efficient public enquiry
where estimates can be subjected to public cross-examination.
We have also had the recent findings of the Monopolies Commission on cross-Channel car ferry services. That has been accepted only this month by the Minister of State. The commission refers specifically to the substantial change in the situation which will arise if and when the tunnel comes into use.
We have fairly recent evidence of the success of the Berne gauge system operated by the German railways. I gather that there are some new and rather encouraging figures coming from British Railways. We have also had the comment on the excess capacity of the present services.
It is for these and other reasons of genuine public concern that we believe that we must oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, in the hope that the demand for a quick public inquiry will then be met. It should be held as soon as possible and not later.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I hope to cheer your heart, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps the hearts of some Opposition Members by making the shortest speech in this debate, even shorter than some of the speeches I made in the three debates on the Channel Tunnel last year.
The spokesman for the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), made a more reasonable assessment of his party's position than did his predecessor as party spokesman on this matter, the former hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said several times that


there is growing public interest and concern. There may well be, but the interest and concern that is expressed to me in the North-West takes the form of the question "When will Parliament decide whether or not to build the tunnel? If the tunnel is to be built, why not get on with it? If the tunnel is not to be built, stop what is being done at this moment. Let there be a decision."
There can be arguments about the details, as there were arguments in the last debate. I do not believe that there is a public demand for another public inquiry by experts or non-experts, whether or not they are a high-powered group as the Minister described them. I have the greatest possible suspicion of people who are put together and called a high-powered group.
Then there is the time scale which must he fitted together with the review. Incidentally, it is time that I fitted in my own interests. In the last four debates I had to declare that I am, and have been for 10 years, an honorary secretary of the all-party Parliamentary Group on the Channel Tunnel. Fortunately or unfortunately, I also declare that I have no financial interest in any body concerned with the project. It is a sad thing that a Member has to declare that he has no financial interest. It would be better if we maintained the old principle that if a Member has an interest he declares it and if he has not he says nothing.
In the last debate, on 15th June last year, my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State was "on the road to Damascus", to use his words. He said on 25th October that he was still on the road to Damascus but he had not seen the blinding light. I suggested that he had parked in a layby. Now he has got his batteries going again. The General Election has given him another lease of life and he is moving along the road again.
My right hon. Friend is not now being necessarily inconsistent with what was said in opposition, and I believe that the present Opposition are being somewhat churlish about this. If someone eventually decides to agree with what one wants, one should not always be too critical of the reasons for the conversion
I suggest that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Labour Government of 1974 are being absolutely consistent with

the points of view expressed by the Labour Government of 1964. So we are at least consistent on that point. I am glad to be in a majority on my side and in the House as a whole today, unlike the position I was in a few months ago.
I do not want the debate to become a matter of "Whose parking lot shall fit there? Which road shall go there?" It was very nice of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) to say "I have some family interests in the area round about the Cheriton terminal." The House will listen very carefully to anybody who has interests in an area near the entrance to the tunnel. The hon. Gentleman was right to declare his interest
What matters is not only the effect of the tunnel on the immediate area of the terminal, or even on Kent or on the South-East Region. The predominant interest is the national one. The tunnel will be a link from Europe to our country, but from our country—or countries, if some hon. and right hon. Members want to insist on that—to the whole of Europe. It will be a link from Great Britain through to the whole of Europe.
My right hon. Friend said that he wanted—to use his delightful phrase—to keep his options open. If the last Prime Minister had had a speech writer capable of producing such expressions over the last three and a half years, he might still be Prime Minister now.
There is the argument of how more rail-oriented a railway tunnel can be made. That is another argument to be considered again in the future. If there has to be a public inquiry, let it go through properly and quickly. I do not know what part Parliament will play in that. Our debates on the issue of the tunnel raise doubts whether the Chamber of the House of Commons is the right place to decide technical matters of this sort when the principle has been established. Is Parliament the best place for arguing the details of the technology and conducting arguments about road and rail links?
In the interests not only of the local people in Kent but of people throughout the region and over the country as a whole, I have argued openly and consistently for 10 years that Britain needs the tunnel and that we should go ahead with building it. An on-off policy is not


the way of producing the best from people concerned with technology.
I believe that there will be a tunnel. The forecast I made in the last Parliament that the then shadow spokesman would present the necessary Bill and that the then Minister for Transport Industries would, in his rôle in opposition, support him has been realised. The sooner we can go ahead and secure certainty for this project the better it will be for the country, for industry and for people, and the greater will be the opportunity. I believe that the British are big enough to gain every possible advantage from the undoubted opportunities made available by the Channel Tunnel.

6.9 p.m.

Sir John Rodgers: I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) on an amusing, original and charming maiden speech. I am sure that the points he made about the effect of a possible Channel Tunnel on our defence will not be wasted on the House.
Before the House decides to give a Second Reading to the Bill, I want to take the opportunity of raising three problems which greatly affect the whole of Kent and in particular my constituency. They arise from Clause 1 and Schedule 1 of the Bill.
The second paragraph of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum contains the sentence:
These works include the tunnel itself, the connections to the British rail and road systems and the terminal area at Cheriton.
That is the part of the Bill to which I wish to refer. I regret to say that the Minister was a little vague in his speech. He must be more specific if he is to satisfy me about the various concessions and examinations that his Department will undertake.
When the Secretary of State for the Environment said that he would give permission for phase 2 to go ahead but that there would be a reappraisal of the whole scheme before moving on to phase 3, my constituents breathed a sigh of relief. There is much in the present scheme to which they object. Whether they have any right to feel relieved is a matter for doubt. Perhaps the speech

of the Secretary of State was more an emollient than a promise.
I am not opposed to a Channel Tunnel. I am opposed to certain aspects of the scheme before us. I am particularly opposed to the arrangements for Cheriton and the express rail link from London to Cheriton. All the maps and plans that have been put before my constituents are out of date. They were drawn up 30 years ago. Since then there have been enormous road and housing developments in Kent, but these are not shown on the maps that my constituents have been given.
Most important of all is that the documents which British Rail has so far put out do not deal with the effect that the high-speed rail link will have on the lives and property of the people who live anywhere near it. My constituents have had no access to up-to-date maps, and the maps they have received take no account of the fairly high density of house building in my constituency at Eden-bridge and at charming little villages like Chiddingstone, Leigh, Hever and the rest.
The maps showing the alternative routes—if those alternatives exist and if they are not simply a pipe dream—are without contours or sections and give no indication of whether there will be cuttings or embankments. No indication is given of the line or of the noise level that will be entailed. My constituents feel that there should be tremendous alterations to the line through the constituency from Edenbridge to Tonbridge. There seems to be a tacit assumption that the small back line which hitherto has been used by trains every few hours must be expanded into the high-level, highspeed, four-line rail connection which is to be constructed for the tunnel.
There are frequent references to the environment, but there is no evidence in any document I have seen from British Rail that there has been any study or analysis of the environmental effect of the railway and there is no indication of what will happen through Tonbridge when the line is built. I have considerable doubt about the environmental damage that will follow the construction of the high-speed railway. Japan has experience of these high-level railway lines. One, known as the Shiukansen, has been in use there for 10 years. Experience of it gives rise to


serious doubts whether the anticipated effects on the environment are justified by the small gains in journey times. It appears that the Japanese line is similar to the one which British Rail proposes to drive through the heart of the Garden of England, most of which is in my constituency. The experience of residents living alongside the line in Japan suggests that there will be very serious effects from noise and vibration.
I have with me cuttings from the Japan Times as recently as 31st March this year. They show that inhabitants of a town called Nagoya, which is situated between Tokyo and Osaka, have suffered so grievously from the effects of the line that they are now bringing a legal action against the Japanese railways which, unlike British Rail, do not deny that there is great noise pollution and vibration disturbance from it.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does the hon. Member also know that in Tokyo people are dying from pollution by motor cars?

Sir J. Rodgers: That is a totally different problem and is irrelevant to the point I am discussing.
As a result of the complaints, the Japanese railway authorities propose to cut a line through the central mountain area to avoid the high population districts and thus reduce the noise pollution. British Rail should study the problem and do something about it before it is too late. It is proposing to put this link where there are hundreds of houses and in a position which would make life intolerable for the people who live in them.

Mr. Ogden: Is the hon. Member aware that the railway in Japan runs through the shanty-town district of Nagoya where the houses are made of wood and corrugated iron and where the foundations are not like those of the houses in his constituency? They are different houses in different areas and of a different construction, and they are certainly not half as sound as those in Kent.

Mr. Frank Tomney: Before any more is said about Nagoya, I wish to get in on this and make clear that the Shepherds Bush terminal will be in my constituency.

Sir J. Rodgers: I was appalled and alarmed to receive a letter the other day from British Rail's Channel Tunnel Director, to whom I had written and asked about compensation. He said:
we have as yet practically no experience of how the Land Compensation Act 1973 may work and I would certainly not like to give an opinion on an individual case … we shall endeavour to be reasonable and fair in our dealings with individuals within the limit of our powers".
He went on to say:
Anyone who purchases a house adjacent to a railway line which has been there for many years—or for that matter a house on a main road—implicitly accepts the possibility that the character of traffic on either the railway or the road may change over the years. Indeed, one may well buy a house in a quiet residential street and find that traffic planning has diverted the main road traffic through it under a one-way scheme.
I myself live in a particularly quiet corner of Surrey; but a couple of years ago the planners of air traffic re-routed two airways, one from Heathrow and one from Gatwick, to cross almost immediately above my house. I have no claim for compensation; this is simply one of the things one has to accept as the price for staying in the most overcrowded section of this island, the South-East, where there is bound to be some conflict between public and private interest.
The previous Government tried to make arrangements for generous compensation when land had to be taken, where there was pollution by noise and where, although buildings were not physically affected, the quality of life was impaired. I stress the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) that we should like to be sure that the compensation scheme will apply as much to noise and vibration from railways as it does to noise from roads and air traffic.

Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend in replying intends to deal with that matter, but I should like to say, on the hon. Gentleman's point about traffic schemes not coming within the Land Compensation Act passed by his own Government, that I raised the matter in Committee during the passage of that measure and the then Government were not prepared to accept the point.

Sir J. Rodgers: If that means that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to amend the Act himself—

Mr. Mulley: Much as we should like to do so, we cannot undo all the mistakes of the previous Government.

Sir J. Rodgers: There will be another day for that debate, I think.
I and my constituents do not accept that the line of the old railway should be the basis of the four-line, high-speed link. I shall do all I can to try to persuade British Rail to alter it.
I understand that there will be a meeting shortly at Edenbridge at which there will be represented the right hon. Gentleman's Department, Kent County Council, the district council and British Rail. I want to make it clear that any of my constituents who wish to raise a point or listen, criticise or ask questions can attend, because some of them are worried that they may be excluded and that only the elected representatives will be present.
I should like to say something about Cheriton. I object to the roll-on, roll-off point being so near the coast. There is bound to be an increase of traffic from the Continent through Kent, a great deal of it by road. It will be two-way traffic, because there will be a great increase in traffic coming through Kent to Cheriton to use the tunnel.
Even if it is not possible to make it obligatory for all the traffic to go to the central point at the White City, or where-ever it finally is in London, surely it is possible to have a tariff so designed that it will be financially advantageous for people to put their freight on in London or let it go straight through to London rather than decant it at Cheriton. I know that that is not necessarily good business, but the social cost must be weighed. I hope that there is nothing in the present arrangement between the two countries that would prevent our being able to give advantageous terms to people leaving the traffic from the Continent to go straight through, or putting their own freight on in London and letting it go through by rail rather than road.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) has made a most extraordinary speech in which he pledged renewed support for a planning inquiry commission and pressed for the rail link to be put underground between South Croydon and Crockham Hill, emerging just within the boundaries of my constituency, next door to Westerham. From there it would go across the open countryside, a much more beautiful part of the countryside than my hon. Friend repre-

sents. I hope that there is no truth in the suggestion that that proposition is becoming increasingly popular.
My constituents would also like a categorical denial from the Minister that it is the long-term intention to release land in North Edenbridge to serve as a British Rail depot station for the Channel Tunnel link. That idea is causing great alarm and despondency. Such a move would blight Edenbridge and transform the gateway to the Kentish Weald into an ugly stepping-stone between London and the Continent.
My constituents do not oppose the tunnel but they are not enamoured of it so far. If the Government wish to have their active co-operation and good will, the points I have mentioned must not be overlooked. I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to consider them sympathetically in their re-examination and reappraisal.

Mr. Speaker: That speech took 16 minutes. Eight more hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. Time is very limited, and therefore I ask hon. Members to be brief.

6.25 p.m.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I make no apology for relating my remarks to Scotland. I do not suppose that it will surprise any hon. Member that I do so.
What is the fundamental reason for the whole concept of the Channel Tunnel? Is it primarily for those seeking leisure, to provide better trade links, or for the furtherance of an EEC commitment? I suppose that it is a combination of those reasons. What is the Government's thinking as to which reason, if any, has priority?
In relation to Scotland, the route is not a sensible added attraction to those seeking leisure. To those wanting to further the trade or our businessmen, I will speak about a much better alternative later in my remarks. At every poll on the question of an EEC commitment 85 per cent. of the people of Scotland were found to be opposed to that commitment. If we are risking the expenditure of the money involved for those reasons, under none of those headings does it seem to have any particular advantage to offer the citizens of Scotland.
I shall reduce what I have to say to three simple headings. The first is the effects. We hear in the House a great deal about decentralisation. I have never heard anyone do other than extol its virtues, but, having been a Member twice, with a gap between my times here, I seem to be back where I was before. Very little decentralisation ever actually takes place.
When I was previously a Member we had secured for Scotland half the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Philatelic Bureau of the Post Office. Then, after a last ditch fight, Scotland secured the Post Office Savings Bank office, and now the Government have given us the offshore oil services and the training school in Midlothian. We are glad about that. We take some of the credit for those decisions, which were brought about partly by the presence of myself and my six hon. Friends in the House. It is difficult to persuade the House to carry out decentralisation, to whose virtues it pays so much lip service.
It does not seem to me to be in keeping with good planning further to congest the most congested part of Britain. However the tunnel is regarded, it certainly adds to congestion. Apart from spreading jobs around, which everyone agrees to be a good thing, decentralisation helps to reduce congestion. Shall we wait till we have a Tokyo situation in Britain before we learn to avoid further unnecessary congestion? Has the Secretary of State conducted, or will he conduct, a thorough study of the economic effects of the scheme on Scotland? So far as we in Scotland are aware, no such study has been undertaken.
My second heading is priorities. The A9 road in Scotland is meant to be our motorway link to what the whole House keeps talking about as the oil development area, part of which I represent. The road is a scandal. I am not saying any thing original in stating that. Many of the proposals to improve it are ludicrous, and in some respects they will add to the dangers of that dreadful road.
It is ridiculous that there is no motorway from the Border to Glasgow. Roadworks always seem to be going on. There are many more motorways in England. Is it unreasonable to ask that improvement of our roads should be a priority as long

as we have a dreadful road system? It is ridiculous that there is not a continuous motorway from the Border to Glasgow and beyond.
Many people want quick oil development. I want slow development, but if the House wants quick development it is time hon. Members considered the priorities of our communications. Direct flights from Scotland to the continent are almost non-existent. The provision of such flights should be a priority. Our sea links for passengers are also almost non-existent. We used to have many more than we have today. Many people in Scotland, many of them in my constituency, are totally cut off from all public transport. Promises were made when the trains were taken away and those promises have been broken many times. I have mentioned that matter in a previous speech, and I shall not repeat it now.
Is it unreasonable to put the point, bearing in mind the congestion aspect and the fact that Scottish businessmen's top priority is that they want to travel direct to Europe, that the proposed route is unsuitable? If we are after business, let us keep that in mind.
My third and last point is that there is an alternative in the Scottish context, namely the Oceanspan plan of the Scottish Council. That was put on the shelf and never seriously considered in the House. I have a copy of a motion, relating to the Oceanspan, that was tabled by me on 3rd February 1970. Perhaps right hon. and hon. Members will not be so puzzled when people like me become impatient when they remember that in 1970 the Scottish Council was considering a report on Oceanspan.
The Oceanspan plan, for anyone who is not familiar with it and intimately concerned, is the simple concept of the narrow waistline of Scotland across the Central Belt with the deep water on the West being used as a link. The largest ships could negotiate the waters of the Clyde directly, and the deep water inshore, with only minimal dredging, necessary would ensure that this deep-water port could be the gateway or the bridgeway to Europe. It was planned as the natural route for linking containerisation to Europe. The business world of Scotland and the trade unions welcomed the Oceanspan report. At the time there


were few if any discordant voices. That is the radical alternative.
Perhaps the tunnel scheme can be put into effect as well some day, but that can only be done if there is enough money to go round for all our priorities. That is the way in which we see the situation in Scotland. We do not see how the Channel Tunnel will help us, but we see how the Oceanspan plan would help Scotland and the whole of Britain. This appears to Scotland to be a much more sensible approach if we are to engage in mammoth and radical improvements to our existing links.
Are not such schemes like this tunnel scheme a bit like the bankrupt who goes in for some wild spending when he should be doing the opposite? We in Scotland are tired of watching our share of the taxes being spent on prestige projects that never seem to succeed. They cost vast amounts at a time when the country is having to face housing problems, school building problems and communication problems. We get tired of Concordes and Maplins and we are tired of the Channel Tunnel before it is off the ground.
I hope that it does not get off the ground till some of the country's problems are solved. When I go back to my constituents what can I tell them? What advantages to Scotland will accrue from the Channel Tunnel?

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Frank Tomney: I apologise to the House for not being present during the whole of the debate. I had an urgent meeting with the gas industry, which at present has extraordinary difficulties. It is usually my custom to sit in during debates. Having said that, I promise to be short and incisive.
The remarks of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) ring a distinct bell in my memory. Bearing in mind our economic difficulties, many people are wondering whether we are justified in dangling such schemes as Maplin, Concorde and the Channel Tunnel before the British people. We are doing so at a time when we are trying by various means to borrow as much finance as we can from overseas to match our economic difficulties. It is not simply

a matter of bookkeeping for a future project or to establish planning when the public learn that we are entering into guarantees of over £1,000 million and that there is an initial budget of £30 million. That is committed finance whether or not the Channel Tunnel is completed. That will become a main point in economics, both practical and theoretical, in the next two or three years.
We have trodden this path before. Some of us trod it when we witnessed escalating costs in the Concorde project. The first estimate was that the cost would be no more than £400 million. Actual costs have risen to over £1,000 million and they are still soaring. What guarantees have the Government against the costs of the tunnel escalating from the present level to, for example, £800 million?
An escalating figure could lead us into a situation in which we would be wise to think again before committing ourselves to the course of action which is proposed regarding the Channel Tunnel even before the report following the consultative inquiry on the possibilities of such a programme is made available. It would have been better if the people who had thought about a Channel Tunnel in 1870 had built it then. We are now considering it in the light of all the attendant penalties.
The penalties which affect my constituents most closely and severely concern the siting of the terminus of the Channel Tunnel at Shepherds Bush. That is one of the most congested parts of London. It is an area in which the open space per thousand of the population for recreational purposes is less than in any other part of London. In all conscience, the present space is small enough for London citizens. The A4 is already congested to a point where it is clear that in five years' time traffic will be stymied for long distances stretching out of London. The surrounding roads are inadequate to take the increased demand which will accrue if the tunnel terminus is situated in my constituency.
The demand for housing is so great and the available land so scarce that the agitation to preserve land for housing is a feature of the local council's opposition to the tunnel. The local council has come out 100 per cent. against the siting of the terminus at White City. It is known that British Rail owns the ground.


There is no capital cost involved, but we must consider the disturbance that will accrue and the great environmental problems that will result in the Shepherds Bush area. That area probably contains more individual occupiers of flat dwellings than any other part of London. These matters must be taken into account. There is little industry in the Shepherds Bush area and there is a dormitory situation.
The buses to and from London are already the subject of severe restriction. The sites for secondary roads are not apparent. This is the situation that confronts the siting of the terminus at Shepherds Bush. It is an area in which land is scarce and the population is dense. In the present conflict it may be that the Greater London Council and the Government differ. Wandsworth does not want the terminus and Hammersmith cannot take it. The environmental problems will be so immense that it should not be within the compass of any planners to recommend such a siting.
Let us consider the alternatives and proceed on that basis. It is clear that the terminus cannot be contemplated at White City. That is not a possibility owing to the density of population and road configuration. To inflict such a scheme upon people who are already centred under the Heathrow flight path would be an environmental disaster. We are asking the Minister, through the consultative committee, to say that the terminus should not be sited at Shepherds Bush.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. John E. M. Moore: I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) on his amusing and historical speech. I say, with all cordiality, that perhaps some good has resulted from Roundheads, Rio Tinto and international banks. I must indicate a strong constituency interest. The House will remember the strong advocacy of my predecessor, Sir Richard Thompson, in previous debates on behalf of the area of Croydon that I have the honour to represent.
The remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) at the beginning of the debate were most important to me when I first considered the subject. I considered it in detail first from the national interest. From a tech-

nical point of view it seemed quite sensible and feasible. From an economic view it seemed entirely viable. From the national point of view I am entirely committed and convinced that it is an operation that we must undertake. However, I have a great duty to my constituents to uphold the environmental aspect. I am afraid I cannot say that that aspect has been thoroughly examined from my constituents' point of view. It is about this that I have some slightly parochial points to discuss. I know the House will understand that in the limited time available I shall not be able to comment on previous speeches.
One thing which came to me very strongly when studying the exhaustive files and correspondence of Sir Richard Thompson was the almost inexorable pattern which develops behind a national project of this kind when individuals have few opportunities to show their definite and strong interests. We ought to consider at some stage, at the initiation point of a national project, the possibility of a new mechanism which will allow us to take account of specific cases of hardship instead of leaving such consideration until after lengthy delays.
I want to be specific and to deal with two areas where my constituents will suffer. The tunnel is expected to emerge at the ton of Birdhurst Avenue in the centre of my constituency. It will destroy in fact, as it has done from the point of view of planning blight already, great numbers of homes, and naturally the people involved are greatly concerned.
As far as one can tell, about 140 houses are definitely likely to be destroyed. We all know in this House what the housing situation is. Let us consider those 140 houses in terms of replacement. If we were to try to replace the 140 houses the sum involved would be at least in excess of £2 million, taking the figure of £15,000 a house.
The other and more important cost in the long term is the cost of noise pollution. It is difficult to compare a person who has purchased a house near a railway line on which there might be one or two trains an hour with a person living alongside a line with express trains rushing through. This is a difficult problem and we must recognise the cost involved. These two costs are both specifically related to my constituents.
Happily a solution has been posed for my constituents and those of the neighbouring constituency to the south. The London borough of Croydon has been studying the situation, as has British Rail. Unfortunately we do not have the British Rail figures. Croydon has been studying the possibility, as British Rail has done, of extending the tunnel for a further distance of 5·2 kilometres.
Recent studies—I cannot yet attribute them—suggest that if the line were to go as planned along the tentative line proposed by British Rail above ground, the cost would be about £18 million. The cost for the additional 52 kilometres, for complete tunnelling, on full social costing, would be about £20 million at the most. In summary, the cost would be £18 million, at least, on the surface and £20 million, at most, underneath. We are talking about a project which in national terms will cost about £1,120 million. Surely we can concern ourselves specifically with Croydon's proposals in relation to such a minute amount of money in the context of such a huge sum. It would amount to £2 million extra, at worst, if my costings have any validity, as I am sure they do.
Basically I want three assurances. The first is that Ministers will press British Rail to be very sympathetic to the case of my constituents in relation to the London borough of Croydon's proposals. Secondly I would like agreement now—not later on, because of the inordinate delays we have already had—on the study by British Rail of hardship cases which have already occurred in my constituency. Thirdly—although I hope that this situation will not occur—were British Rail foolish enough to ignore the intelligent recommendations we are making, I would wish to see sympathetic attention given not only to constituents whose houses are removed but to the whole problem of noise pollution.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Would my hon. Friend acknowledge that if the Minister and British Rail are giving sympathetic consideration to the proposal for tunnelling under Croydon they could well combine with it consideration of pushing the tunnel still further south so that the line would avoid the valley through Purley, Kenley, Whyteleafe, War-

lingham and Woldingham, emerging south of the North Downs hillside without, if possible, inflicting any damage on the Sevenoaks constituency? Would not the argument of Croydon be consistent with that kind of suggestion?

Mr. Moore: I am delighted to hear how far apparently people are willing to accept at face value the validity of Croydon's case. These studies show how little more would be the cost of tunnelling underneath compared with the cost, including all the environmental problems that would be created, of building the line above ground. The assurances I have asked for would not be too difficult to give. And given that, one is happy enough in the national context to support this project.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: The road to Damascus has been so often travelled by politicians that the change of front by the Government does not need any particular comment. I hope that they do not become so blinded with missionary zeal that they overlook one or two aspects of the tunnel problem which are of concern to my constituents.
I welcome the re-examination which the Government have put in hand as clearly the project must be reconsidered, including the projections on which it was based, in the light of the added fuel costs. I hope, however, that the Government will not use the re-examination as a smokescreen behind which to procrastinate and defer decisions on various problems directly or indirectly thrown up by the tunnel and its building. I remind the Minister that between 1973 and 1980 the roll-on, roll-off freight passing through the port of Dover is likely to increase between 250 and 350 per cent.
If the Minister has any doubt about the impact of all this on the port of Dover and the town, I invite him to come and see for himself the lorries parked along the front. I invite him to come some weekend in July and August when the traffic stretches back through the town to Lydden. In a previous incarnation in 1959 he visited the town, and I hope he will honour us with another visit so that he can see what my constituents have to endure.
The right hon. Gentleman could well consider and take an immediate decision on a marshalling yard for lorries set near the eastern bypass to Dover port. We shall need it whether there is a Channel Tunnel or not. If that decision is to be deferred until after the re-examination is completed, the problems will get out of hand. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was so commendably brief that a number of points on which we require assurance were overlooked. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to deal with them.
First, one of the main bases for the prosperity of Dover is the port and the ferries operating from it. They are utterly convinced that they can compete with the tunnel if it is built, provided there is fair competition. On the other hand —it may not arise immediately on this Bill, but I would like to know the right hon. Gentleman's thinking now—will he view with favour any plan to expand the port? We could do with a couple more berths. Will he allow the port to amortise the capital cost over a longer period than the Department at present requires?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman consider tying the tunnel operators to published rates, so that at least the port can see exactly on what basis it has to compete?
Thirdly, will the Minister give an assurance—because the Government are, after all, morally if not financially directly committed to or involved in the Channel Tunnel project—that there will be no hidden or overt subsidies granted to the project should it get into difficulties?
If the tunnel is built, Dover will be in a particularly difficult position. It will have a port and will be able to compete, but business men will wonder whether to site their operations in Dover. Will the Minister therefore give an assurance that the M20 motorway will be extended into Dover or that there will be at least a comparable road connection with Cheriton so that business men can look either to the port or the tunnel and switch their goods accordingly? I do not want Dover to become a cul-de-sac beyond Cheriton.
If the tunnel is opened in 1980 there is the possibility of a slight dislocation of the employment position. Therefore, will the Minister permit Dover Council special

borrowing facilities so that it can start creating new employment projects?
I am glad to see that the tunnel system, up to the boundary mark in the Channel, will be part of the new Dover Council area. Will the Minister ensure that for rating purposes this is rated on the most realistic basis so that Kent gets its fair share of the financial return on the tunnel? This is important for East Kent and the county as a whole and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends from Kent will support me on this point.
No matter how well intentioned the Government may be and no matter how smoothly the project proceeds, there are bound to be many small but aggravating problems affecting my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). Although many of my constituents may not have agreed with the decisions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) they will recognise, as I do, that he was sensitive to their problems and in response to a suggestion of mine he set up a committee on which local interests were represented and through which problems could be anticipated and ironed out. The first meeting of the committee was in Maidstone just before the General Election. Will the Minister now give an assurance that the committee will be perpetuated and that further meetings will be held and, if possible, can he arrange that occasionally meetings of the committee are held in Dover so that my constituents may feel that there is direct and continuing concern by the Government about their problems?
I hope that there will be advantages nationally and internationally, and even for Kent itself, from the project, but I am concerned about the immediate disadvantages which will be felt by my constituents. I hope that the Minister will show himself to be as sensitive to the needs and concern of my constituents as my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil was.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I had not intended to participate in the debate but on looking at the Bill I saw references to the expenditure of various sums of money, in one instance about £800 million. One thus becomes aware that we in the House, and politics in


general, are concerned with the allocation of resources within society. The Bill seeks to allocate certain sections of resources in providing a Channel Tunnel. Some hon. Members who have spoken in the debate seem to have argued about whether road or rail or various other methods of transport may or may not be used in connection with the tunnel. I am concerned, following my experiences during the recent election campaign, about the whole problem of resources in society and how we allocate those resources.
I was invited during the recess by the headmaster of a local primary school to visit his school and see what working in the school entailed in the absence of a building extension which was to have been commenced this year. That headmaster is faced with the need for the Department of Education and Science to find a relatively small sum of money so that he can meet certain requirements in the school which will enable him to provide a reasonable education for the children. That represents an urgent priority and raises the question of where our priorities lie in the allocation of resources.
It has been suggested to me that the business we are now involved in is mythical, if that is the right word, that the Government will not proceed with the Channel Tunnel and that we are merely going through an exercise because some millions have already been spent. I do not know whether that is true or false, but I want to make clear, because many of my constituents will be interested in raising this matter with me in the future that if there is a Division tonight on the question of the Channel Tunnel I shall find it necessary to go into the "No" Lobby.
While I would not reject completely and out of hand the prospect of establishing a Channel Tunnel at some future date, I am certain that within the next 10 or 15 years the social and economic problems faced by many towns and large cities in this country will require a massive injection of resources if deprivations are to be overcome. It is only when that has been done that we can talk about what I consider to be the luxury of a Channel Tunnel. I urge the Minister to think again. Let us see £800 million

allocated to housing, education, social services and some of the items which people in my constituency regard as having considerable priority over the Channel Tunnel.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. S. James A. Hill: We have today heard many expressions of opinion about the Channel Tunnel, which has exercised the imagination of politicians since 1802. One of the more praiseworthy suggestions today was that an atom bomb be placed at the end of the tunnel and so that a button could be pressed in Whitehall. That would make me go by steamer from Southampton to Le Havre.
The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) said that he would rather have resources allocated to various town halls, but he must recognise that there are at the moment no resources of the sort he mentioned and that this project is being funded by private enterprise with a Government guarantee. If he could get guarantees for town hall expenditure his suggestion would be viable, but otherwise it is not.
It has been suggested that we must watch the cost of this project. This perhaps means that the matter remains once more in the hands of the politicians. The design might be altered because of a particular whim. We have heard of an underpass which is to come out somewhere in the middle of Croydon. Obviously that would add millions of pounds to the project. One of my right hon. Friends agreed that it could be stretched even farther so that we spent another £100 million. As politicians we have to watch carefully to make sure that we do not alter the design substantially.
We have to ensure that there are sufficient highly guarded allowances to meet contingencies. One of the most important things to guard against is the rate of inflation knocking all our estimates out of the window. I am pleased to think that we can have some control over this aspect.
We heard the Minister say that he will give to local authorities more control over the works in their vicinity. Perhaps this will put up the cost of the project. However, it is praiseworthy, and many hon. Members with constituency problems will be able to take this back to their local


authorities as a sign of good intent from the right hon. Gentleman.
Anyone who has been attacked by the environmentalist lobby over road transport will realise that there is an obligation to switch as much freight as possible from road to rail. It is right to ask how much more oriented to rail we can get than to have a rail tunnel. British Railways will gain an enormous benefit from this.
One of the disadvantages is that geographically the Channel Tunnel is in the wrong position. The point of entry is far removed from the industrial Midlands and the North, from the under-developed regions of the country. It is in a choice residential area, perhaps not stockbroker belt, but an area where a vast number of people lead an orderly and environmentally healthy life. Consequently there w ill be strong resistance from the environmental lobby during phases 2 and 3. Of course, there is the commercial lobby representing shipping interests.
The French Government, on the other hand, will have a comparatively easy time, since the point of entry on the French coast is in a relatively undeveloped region. The tunnel will be welcomed as a means of improving and developing the region within a balanced regional programme. The French Government and the chambers of commerce in south-west France have already seized upon the opportunity provided by the tunnel and the ferries. They have designed and are building, in some cases to four-lane standards, a new motorway from Calais to the Spanish border at Bayonne, a distance of 1,000 kilometres. This is basically to link up with the Channel Tunnel. It will be the first major French motorway to be entirely toll free. It will completely bypass Paris, going through Rouen and Bordeaux into Spain. It will be a valuable asset to the United Kingdom which can expect ever-increasing trade with Spain and Portugal.
Any project creating new links across sea straits must be studied on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis and in the framework of the European traffic infrastructure network. This project must be examined against the background of existing sea and air links and whether these are likely to continue to be economic. If they are not, there will be

unemployment and bankruptcy. The tunnel will enable us to expand our trade with all parts of the European Community. We have had the example given of a container load of Scotch beef—perhaps an emotive phrase at the moment—being loaded at Glasgow or Edinburgh and going down to the heel of Italy without any further handling. It is the handling factor which increases the costs of container traffic.
There will need to be technical scrutiny of the details of the project. The idea of only two tunnels with a central maintenance tunnel may have to be reviewed before the project has got further than the authorisation of phase 3.
We have also to think of the effect of the tunnel on passengers. Being able to get on a train in London and travel to Paris in three hours 40 minutes at a speed of about 160 mph must excite the imagination. The cost per passenger mile must be substantially below that of air travel. The whole basis of this investment is that there will be a massive increase in the number of people using the new facility.
We have heard about the difficulty of lorries parked in Dover. When the tunnel is in operation I suggest that there will not be a lorry in that part of the country. They will all be loaded at the London container terminal. From then on they will not be seen on the A or B roads of the country.
The tunnel will have a profound effect on the operations of the ferries. There is a basic fear in the minds of ship-owners. It is to be expected that the hovercraft service between Dover and Folkestone and Calais and Boulogne will cease entirely and that by 1980 the number of accompanied vehicles for the French Straits, with the tunnel will be about 300,000, whereas without the tunnel it would amount to about 1½million. The figure for 1971 was 700,000. There must be a dramatic reduction. Other crossings such as Harwich to the Hook will be affected to a lesser degree. I am pleased to say that the crosisngs that will suffer least will be the Southampton-Le Havre-Cherbourg crossing. We can expect to maintain an absolute increase in passenger traffic in my constituency.
We have heard little from the airway lobby. It must expect a percentage loss of about 14 per cent. in the 1980s.
These are just the fears. How can we as politicians think beyond two or three years? There will be a small percentage of unemployment in the Dover-Calais area but not so much that it cannot be redeployed or retrained.
A traffic barrier of the magnitude of the Channel to a trading nation which relies on its industrial exports is a severe handicap. In Sicily, where there are a great number of problems, the people are praying that the Community will help in building either a bridge or tunnel in the Messina Straits. We have a golden opportunity. Private enterprise will do the job and then hand it over to the Government so that in 50 years' time it is completely owned by the State. It is too golden an opportunity to turn down. I feel sure that those with vision will agree with me tonight in the Lobby.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: Whether or not the Channel Tunnel is built is a decision that must be taken on the overall balance of the national interest. There may well be strong overall arguments at the end of the day for building the tunnel, and I am inclined to think that that will be the result of the argument, but I propose to wait for further information before making up my mind.
I greatly welcome the announcement today that independent advisers are to be appointed to advise the Government. Whether or not the overall argument comes out in favour of building in the national interest, there can be no doubt that the immediate physical consequences of that decision, if it be taken, will have to be borne by those who live in the county of Kent.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) found yet another injustice to Scotland in the proposal even to consider building the Channel Tunnel, so far as I followed her, on the ground of the substantial distance between Scotland and the English Channel. I dread to think what she would have found had the proposal been for the tunnel to emerge in Moray and for a high-speed rail link to carry goods to England by way of Nairn.
The high-speed rail link is the nature of the problem that will most concern many people who live in Kent. It is not surprising that the people who live in villages through which the high-speed rail link proposed by British Rail will pass are worried about it. The loss of one's home or the deterioration in the enjoyment of one's home cannot ultimately decide the national question of whether the Channel Tunnel with its rail link shall go forward, but there can be no surprise that those who have to suffer the immediate consequences put that at the top of their list of the factors to be taken into account. There are many for whom it is the predominating and decisive factor. If a person who has bought a house in the county hoping to live relatively quietly albeit near an ordinary railway, finds that this proposal comes about, this is a natural, human and understandable reaction.
If the Channel Tunnel is built and if the high-speed rail link which at the moment is considered necessary is constructed, justice will demand that a full disclosure is made by British Rail of the factors that they have taken into account in coming to their decision where the line shall run. At present that is far from the case. People are not satisfied that full disclosure has taken place, and they cannot be satisfied that the Government will rationally and objectively, and not subjectively and selectively, view all the evidence that is available.
I will indicate the questions which, among others, concern my constituents who will be immediately affected. Is it commercially necessary that there should be a high-speed new rail link? If there is one, how much time will be saved immediately on the London-to-Paris route, and how much time will be saved ultimately on that route? How will passengers and freight traffic be affected by a new high-speed link in comparison with a link of ordinary speed? What will be the effect upon houses which are 30 ft. or 40 ft. away from the new high-speed link? What will be the effect of vibration and air shock waves? How does the noise curve rise with increases in speed, and what research has been done into this? What will be the effect on those who live there by reason of the noise? What research has been done on this and upon what are the forecasts based? Those


are some of the problems to which no answer has yet been made available to people living in Kent. Also of importance are the reasons that were relied upon for the decision to choose Route 5.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: The hon. Gentleman asked what was known about the noise created by high-speed trains. Why does he ask such a question when Britain has some of the finest and fastest high-speed trains in the world—and the quietest? High-speed trains are the quietest form of transport, and the safest.

Mr. Mayhew: I am not asking the question. I am reciting the questions which my constituents are asking and to which they have as yet had no reply. It may be that a train travelling at 60 mph in England is quieter than one travelling at the same speed elsewhere, but the White Paper envisages a train travelling at 160 mph. People who live 30 ft. away from the proposed route in Paddock Wood and Five Oak Green want to know whether consideration can be given to a line running 200 yards to the north, through orchard land, instead of 30 ft. away from their houses.
It has been hard to get much information out of British Railways. The Minister said that detailed consultation had been taking place for three months, but for Paddock Wood and Five Oak Green it has so far consisted only of an exhibition of which there was little advance publicity or notice and at which little information was given, some of it misleading. The question was there asked, what research had been done into the effect of high-speed accidents? The answer given was that it was unlikely that accidents would happen at Paddock Wood or Five Oak Green, and that was not particularly reassuring.
It is widely believed—I do not say with justification—that consultation on the line to be taken by the high-speed link is not much more than a charade, because the decision has already been firmly taken. I hope that the Minister who is to reply will give us a specific assurance that that is not so. I hope that the Government will insist on the utmost pains being taken by British Railways to disclose the answers to all questions that are asked of them, even though they

may seem to be administratively irrelevant, untidy or a nuisance.
It is bad enough to lose one's house or to have one's home made uninhabitable by a development such as this, but if one believes that the decision to bring it about has been prematurely arrived at as an executive decision, cloaked only by a charade of consultative procedure, then that which is already a great hardship becomes an intolerable injustice.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: We have had four debates on this subject in the last 12 months and I suspect that we shall have a few more. We are likely to bore this subject to death before we start boring a tunnel under the English Channel. Mercifully, the speeches are getting shorter but few new arguments emerge.
Variety has been introduced by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) who has two speeches, one when he is in opposition and the other —a complete reversal—when he gets into government. While I sympathise with his predicament, for him to say tonight that the Second Reading of the Bill is a technical matter to enable the Government to keep their options open is really going too far. In the Second Reading debate on the same Bill three months ago he said:
Today we are asked to take decisions, and in a sense, we are taking the decision to go on to the final and definitive stage of the construction of the tunnel, because that is the subject matter of the Bill which we are now considering. As the Under-Secretary very fairly said, if this Bill is passed the treaty will be ratified, and, while on the one hand, theoretically, we are committed only to the end of phase 2 in the middle of 1975, I should have thought that if the whole apparatus in volved in this Bill were set into operation it would be extremely difficult, no matter what may be the out-turn of the considerations in phase 2, to go back on the completion of the whole enterprise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December 1973; Vol. 865, c. 1311.]
I suspect that is exactly the same situation as we shall face tonight. Although I am grateful for small mercies and welcome the Government's reassessment of the project, nevertheless I consider that we shall be voting tonight on the intention to go ahead with the project to completion.
The Minister said that he wished to assess the project with a view to a


greater orientation towards rail traffic. That is splendid, but we must always remember that the profitability of the project as proposed by the Channel Tunnel Company is based on maximising motor vehicle traffic. We have heard no squeals as to how a reassessment will undermine profitability. I suspect that at the end of the day there will be a further survey based on evidence already produced by the existing consultants, and that we shall then be asked to go ahead with phase 3.
Although I welcome the review, it falls far short of what Labour in Opposition were promising only a few months ago. It also falls short of what Labour said in the election campaign about prestige projects. In terms of Concorde, Maplin and the Channel Tunnel, what have we got? There have been no cancellations—and I am not saying that all those projects should have been Cancelled, but that was the implication of Labour's attack—but instead we have been promised only reviews. We have certainly not been given the cancellation of the Maplin project, in weeks not months, as we were given to understand by the Labour Party. In other words, we are to have the same white elephants parading around, even though the ringmaster has changed.
Although many of us welcome the slight change of thinking by the Labour Government, I hope that those hon. Members who voted against the Bill last December will now do the same again for the sake of consistency. That is the course I shall follow. In the debate on this topic on 5th December 1973 the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Park said that no doubt the Government would ask the House to approve the Bill and that their supporters would dutifully oblige. I wonder whether tonight all Labour Members will dutifully oblige their own Government in making what is a significant U-turn from the situation which they took up only a few months ago. I would ask those Labour Members to remember the amendment which Labour moved in the previous debate on this topic. That set out a philosophy with which I personally agree and to which I think they could still adhere.
I accept that this matter virtually has already received a Second Reading and that the treaty has been signed though not ratified. This might alter the situation, but this does not prevent the Labour Government going ahead with those other procedures for which they have indicated support on previous occasions. The first was that there should be an independent inquiry; secondly, greater public participation in the project—a most important aspect; thirdly, greater House of Commons scrutiny of the costs involved—and those costs are already escalating out of control and, in the end, will strangle the project; and, fourthly, a study of a rail-only tunnel.
The Minister treated the House in a cavalier fashion when he said that a few months ago he was a supporter of a rail-only tunnel but had decided that that was no longer feasible. Therefore, he had decided not to ask the independent consultants to look at that aspect. That was the deduction I drew from his remarks. He may be right, but I am not convinced. Surely the consultants and the Select Committee which is to be set up under the hybrid legislation procedure should be allowed to examine the matter. It is not for the Minister to discard this suggestion off-hand without giving the House of Commons an opportunity to consider the great merits of the rail-only tunnel.
We also have something to complain about in respect of the Select Committee procedure. The Minister believes that the review should consider alternative transport strategies and greater orientation towards more rail carriage. That is all very well, but surely the Select Committee should be able to consider that aspect. Furthermore, the petitioners should be able to question the expediency of the Bill on those principles. If the Bill goes through in its present form, it will not be open to the petitioners to challenge the expediency of the Bill and the whole principle of rail only or alternative transport strategies. We are denying to the petitioners an important opportunity to examine the Bill in depth.
I voted against this legislation when it last came before the House for Second Reading. It is the same Bill and carries us forward in the same way. On the previous occasion I said that I would vote against the legislation with regret,


because I am attracted to the idea of a rail-only tunnel. I would gladly vote for the legislation if we were promised a Select Committee to examine costs, if proper public participation could be ensured, and if there could be a study of the rail-only strategy. In the absence of such assurances, I shall vote against the Bill tonight—and I hope that the majority of hon. Members who voted against the legislation last December will also do so.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I was not in the House on the last occasion when the Bill was being debated, but I have some grave doubts about it. I have on previous occasions in the House raised the question of education expenditure, and I regard it as a wrong order of priorities for the Government now to come forward with proposed expenditure in the first instance of £800 million, with the possibility of an extension to £1,000 million. There is also the possibility that British Rail in the first instance may borrow up to £50 million and subsequently £100 million. If the Government cannot fulfil their obligations to my constituents and to the constituents of many other hon. Members in providing adequate schools, they surely cannot now agree to spend these sums on nothing more than prestige projects.
Of the three projects pursued by the Conservative Government—Concorde, Maplin and the Channel Tunnel—I believe that the Channel Tunnel stands the most serious examination. I believe that the idea of a rail-oriented tunnel is a good one. I hope that the Minister who is to reply to the debate will emphasise the environmental advantages of the tunnel. I also hope that in any subsequent discussions the Government will take account of the great advantages of rail travel as opposed to motorway projects, which at present are spewing forth in large numbers in various areas. This is an area of expenditure which I should like to see put back so that other and more urgent priorities may be adopted by the Government.
I am not entirely satisfied that the Bill sets out in sufficient clarity the project's association with private enterprise. It appears that private enterprise will have a gilt-edged investment and that the Government, as usual, will come off second best. I welcome the announcement of a

further independent study of the project, but I believe that a Select Committee would be the best way to examine the situation. One of the best ways to go about the matter is surely for a Select Committee to examine the question beforehand, for its report to come before the House and for the Government then to ask for the expenditure involved. The attraction of a fast journey between London and Paris has a superficial appeal to most of us, but to my constituents, facing the prospect of having to send their children to overcrowded schools situated cheek by jowl with factories, a three-and-a-half-hour journey between London and Paris comes low on the order of priorities. This certainly applies to my order of priorities.
The fourth matter which needs consideration is the misuse of resources which will be involved. We have limited resources. We are very short of houses, for example. I shall be interested to hear from the Government an assurance about the number of people and the amount of materials that will be diverted to the project authorised by this Bill—a project which needs no further authorisation from this House after the due legislative procedures have been followed. Will it affect our much-needed housing drive? Will there be shortages of bricks, of steel and of builders over the next two, three or four years if the project goes ahead? These are matters which need serious answers, and I hope that they will be forthcoming.
We need new schools and houses. These matters must be given their proper priority. I hope that this Labour Government will see to it that the number of housing starts is changed dramatically from the very low level of the previous administration and that the school building programme is restored from the cuts of the previous administration which, because of the economic situation, we are told cannot be restored at present. When all those matters are attended to, I shall give serious consideration to supporting a Channel Tunnel. Until we reach that state of affairs, it is not a project to which I can give my support.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I have spoken on this subject on at least three previous occasions. What I find


strange is that as I go round my constituency I still have to sell the idea of a Channel Tunnel to people in Kent. I find it strange because, despite all the debates in this House last year, it does not seem as if the argument has been sufficiently clearly stated. People do not understand the principle of the tunnel and the why and wherefore of it. Everywhere I go, people remain unconvinced about the need for the tunnel and about its viability. They do not know the arguments in favour of it. They do not see before them the costs and the possible success or otherwise of the tunnel. It is extraordinary that there are so many people who do not know the case for the tunnel.
I endorse what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) said when he repeated what his constituents were saying. He told us that they were expressing to him all the time their concern about what the tunnel would mean, what the fast rail link would mean and how their environment and amenities would be affected. I cannot stress too strongly what it means to live in Kent today with the prospect of this new link connecting to motorways right across France and into Spain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) described so vividly. He sees this as the great golden opportunity for trade between Britain and the European nations. I see it like that as well.
As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said, we must take a national view of it. We must not be parochial. Those of us who represent Kent constituencies must not be small-minded. We must not be county-minded. We must think of the national economic interest. At the same time the Government must go all out to tell those immediately affected by the fast rail link, by the noise of fast trains, by the Cheriton terminal and the loading which will take place there rather than in London, and by the possible fall-out effect of industrial and commercial development which may take place around the Cheriton terminal, just what it will all mean.
I find that I am doing all the explaining when it should be explained by the Government. When he was Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil

(Mr. Peyton) was very good about going to meet people in Kent and putting himself before them. As the Government approach the decision in 1975, however, they must do even more to explain. We must hear from British Railways. We must know what this nationalised industry, its chairman and its board feel about linking up with the continental rail system.
Today we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test that there will be this great opportunity for container freight traffic by rail connecting across Europe. As I understand it, British Railways as yet have no plans for a link of liner trains from Britain through the tunnel into France. The tunnel may be there, but will the liner trains continue? These are matters which British Railways must explain. We do not want just an independent inquiry. We must hear from British Railways that they believe in the project and that they see opportunity and profit coming from it.
I must stress one matter affecting the terminal loading point at Cheriton. A great deal has been said about the possibility of the loading of heavy goods vehicles being done in London. This would be the greatest safeguard to the people of Kent. I am advised by British Railways, however, that it is out of the question on cost grounds alone. It would mean a third railway link to the terminal to carry the special type of flat railway vehicles which would take heavy goods vehicles. What is more, it would be completely out of court on economic grounds to the road haulier who would find it extremely unattractive to have to send heavy goods vehicles 50 or 70 miles down to Cheriton on a rail flat.
A great many people want answers to a considerable number of questions before they will be prepared to support this historic project. I am prepared to vote for it, but I must warn the Government that I am no longer prepared to be their unpaid public relations adviser to the people of Kent, and in saying that I have to declare an interest even though I have been doing so in an unpaid capacity.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Berry: This has been an extremely interesting debate. We have lost a number of hon. Members


who took part in debates on the Channel Tunnel in the last Parliament, but their absence has been more than offset by the presence of some new Members who have intervened today.
I want first to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) and to congratulate him on a most interesting and unusual maiden speech. We have been friends since we were at Oxford some years ago. In view of that, I am sure he will forgive me for using the word "unusual". I was not surprised by his speech. He is a worthy descendant of those other unusual characters who have represented the city of Plymouth over many years, back to and including Lady Astor.
My hon. Friend raised a completely new argument in our Channel Tunnel discussions when he questioned whether the tunnel could be properly defended in the event of hostilities. However, since he is a member of the Institute for Strategic Studies and since the Minister for Transport is a former member of the council of that institute, I feel sure that they can get together to iron out that problem to their mutual satisfaction. We look forward to hearing my hon. Friend many times in the future.
Inevitably the debate has been both of a general character and to some extent of a purely local character. It has been none the worse for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) almost apologised for discussing what he considered to be a number of parochial problems. He had no need to do that. He made a forceful speech on behalf of his constituents. Richard Thompson has a distinguished successor in him and I know that he will fight their battles on many future occasions.
Unlike the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) at the close of the previous Second Reading debate, I do not propose to invite the Opposition to divide the House against the Bill. It was a good Bill, and this is a good Bill, even though the names of the Ministers responsible have changed, to my regret.
Understandably, the Secretary of State, has been a little coy in telling the House about his policy for the Channel Tunnel. When he told the House on 3rd April that he proposed to reintroduce the previous administration's Bill in exactly the same

form, for reasons which we fully appreciate, he said that he had divided the House against the White Paper last October, but he did not remind us that he had also divided the House against the Second Reading of the same Bill in December. Unfortunately, he was ill at that time. Although we are sorry when he is ill, I suspect that, looking back, he may be glad that he did not have to take part in that debate because we might have had more quotations to use against him than we have at this time. Quite a few of my hon. Friends have rightly taken full opportunity of using those quotations.
In December the Minister opposed the Bill. Although he forecast that certain things would happen—unhappily, he has been proved right—he did not forecast that he would be asking the House to support the Second Reading of an identical Bill a few weeks later. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) referred to the right hon. Gentleman's speech on Second Reading in December. I echo his words in wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman's views at that time are the same today. Does he believe that approving and passing this Bill is virtually agreeing to having the Channel Tunnel? If so, then these further reassessments which he insists upon—I do not believe they are necessary the assessments already envisaged in the Bill are enough—must mean that his mind is still open, and this does not quite agree with what he said on the previous occasion.

Mr. Mulley: As I explained at some length in response to points made by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees), I was considering the situation then with the last Government being in power. I am of the opinion that if the election had gone wrong and the Conservative Party had won it probably would have been the case that, willy-nilly, whatever had come out of the further studies, we would have gone ahead with the tunnel. The difference was the result of the General Election, on which I expanded. The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal said that he inferred from my remarks that, if I were in a position to recommend anything to my hon. Friends, I should be recommending that we honour our obligations under the treaty. That is the position today.

Mr. Berry: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation. I look forward to reminding him of those words when the positions are again reversed in a few months. [Interruption.] I am prepared to be reminded of mine, too.
The Secretary of State has shifted his position. Earlier when discussing the tunnel he told us that he believed in a rail-only link. Now he believes in what is known as the rolling motorway as well. I suspect that this is part of his intention to end the Maplin project, but not to appear to be stopping all the major innovations that were being undertaken by the last Government. I believe that the right lion. Gentleman's views on Maplin and the tunnel are very much linked. In his speech on the White Paper in October, although we were talking about a Channel Tunnel, he referred to Maplin no fewer than 14 times.
As we look ahead to the building of the tunnel it is important for the right hon. Gentleman to keep in mind the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Many important details have been raised, some of which I hope the Minister will answer today and others in Committee in due course.
There are four or five areas of vital importance. Whether we consider the building of the tunnel itself or the building of the depot at Cheriton, whether it he the roads linking the tunnel, the rail link, or the development of the White City, one great advantage is that all these matters are fully or partly within the Department of the Environment, and so much can be done within that one Department. I spent two years silently connected with the Department and learned to appreciate the work done there. The all-important thing to consider now is that whether it be the shopkeeper in Hammersmith, the farmer in East Surrey or in Kent, or the housewife in Folkestone or Dover, many people's lives will be affected by the tunnel. Therefore, we must ensure that the environmental harm or effect upon them is kept to an absolute minimum.
Mention has been made of the railway. Of course, the actual line will have to be settled soon. I do not want to get involved in the argument between my right hon. and learned Friend the Mem-

ber for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Seven-oaks (Sir J. Rodgers). I believe that they are both working on the same line, if I may use that phrase, and that they will be able to satisfy themselves and the Government on what needs to be done. It is right that as far as possible the railway line should be kept underground.
The question of compensation has been mentioned by many of my hon. Friends. This is a vital point. I do not know how far the Land Compensation Act is applicable. If it does not apply, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will find some way of ensuring that those affected, whether by a temporary disruption while the line is being built, or by a permanent problem after completion, will be compensated.
We must recognise that someone who has a house near a local line in Surrey or Kent with just a few trains a day is hardly in the same position as somebody who will be living near this line with high-speed trains going up and down during all hours of the day and night. I ask the Minister to bear in mind what happened in Japan. The Daily Telegraph of 9th April reported that
the Japanese National Railway has been forced to offer free medical attention to residents suffering from physical and mental disturbances.
We do not want free medical attention: we want to prevent those disturbances from taking place. I am sure that the Minister will agree with that.
Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the essential need for the M20 being finished in time for the opening of the tunnel. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) said that it should be continued to Dover. I am sure that the Minister will bear this point in mind as well.
It seems that the depot must be at Cheriton. Landscaping is therefore a vital factor. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) will agree about that.
Another important point relates to the White City. The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), now the Secretary of State for the Environment, in his speech on the White Paper last October, said that there might have to be another terminal in south London. I do not


know whether he still thinks that. If it is essential it will mean further disruption in another part of London. I hope that will not be necessary. Of course, I understand the feelings expressed by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney).
I believe that there are good reasons for going ahead with the Bill and the tunnel. Our link with the Continent is enormously important. The rail link between the North and the South, mentioned by the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) in his interesting speech, is also of importance. I think that we shall be able to keep the lorries off the side roads where they are not wanted. I am sure there will be mass public use of the tunnel with holiday and business traffic of all kinds. Many people will benefit from the tunnel. However, we must remember that thousands of people will suffer from the effects of the tunnel, the roads, and the railways, who will not benefit from it. We must balance the two factors.
Having considered everything, I believe that the Government are right to bring in the Bill early in their life. Certainly we on this side of the House—I speak for most of my right hon. and hon. Friends —will do all that we can to ensure its quick passage. We wish it well.

7.49 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): We have had a most interesting debate. It has perhaps gone on for rather longer than many of us had expected, but we started rather later than we thought we would, and the ground has been covered extremely fully.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and one or two hon. Members said that the reintroduction of the Bill was due to the election. There were hints that there may be another election fairly soon, and various dates were even mentioned. I think that most hon. Members who have sat through as many Channel Tunnel debates as I have will agree that if there is another election and another Bill is introduced on these lines, we can send our speeches through the post.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) on his

maiden speech. It was an extremely interesting speech and, as the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) said, in making what one might almost regard as his maiden speech from the Front Bench, it was an unusual contribution to the debate. It was a witty speech, in which the hon. Gentleman referred to his predecessor, and of course we all remember Dame Joan Vickers with affection. She was a woman involved in community politics, who had great courage, as she showed in many of the issues that she supported in the House.
I have visited Plymouth only once. I noticed the clean air, but I thought that it came from the sea rather than from the city.
This is not the time to discuss the Roundheads. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and the hon. Member for Sutton will discuss them later. The hon. Gentleman got rather mixed up on the question where the Roundheads stood, where the Cavaliers stood and where my right hon. Friend stood. He was thinking of them as Poujadistes, which I do not think is how my right hon. Friend would regard them in an historical context.
A number of points have been raised, and if I do not answer them in detail now I shall be able to discuss them later privately with those concerned in the hope of getting the various matters settled. I shall deal with as many points as possible, but those hon. Members who have raised various issues will realise the difficulties involved and accept that I cannot answer all the questions that have been asked.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Finchley raised the Question of the timetable for this project. The Government's timetable is no different from that proposed by the Conservative administration. The renegotiation of the terms will start only after the submission of a draft by the companies by April 1975. Decisions cannot be taken until after the terms available have been established, and they will be necessary before the conclusion of the negotiations and signature of Agreement No. 3. I hope that that, to some extent at any rate, answers the point raised by the right hon. Lady.
Reference was made to the need for land compensation and the Act of 1973.


The provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 will apply to disturbances resulting from the tunnel works. It is the intention to make regulations under Part II about the provision of insulation for properties affected by noise due to railway construction and operation within the Channel Tunnel terminal area. The provisions that will apply to the rail link will be included in the British Railways Bill, and we suppose that these will be on the normal lines of railway legislation.

Mr. John Stanley: The hon. Gentleman says that provisions of the Land Compensation Act will be included in the British Railways Bill. Is he referring to both Parts I and II of the Act? In other words, is the Minister referring both to compensation and to sound insulation?

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman must realise that, basically, it will be a British Railways Bill, but we shall try to guide British Railways and put them on the same lines as the Land Compensation Act 1973.
A number of hon. Members referred to the cost of the tunnel, and perhaps I should clear up this matter in view of recent ill-informed Press speculation about it. There has been no change in the estimate of the real cost of the tunnel of £468 million at 1973 prices—I am speaking in real terms—but this figure will be reviewed during the reassessment of the project as a whole. The outturn cost, like the cash revenue, will, however, depend upon rates of inflation and interest between now and 1980. On the assumptions used in the White Paper, the out-turn cost will be £846 million. If, however, inflation and interest rates continue at their recent high levels for the next six years—an assumption which I should be reluctant to make—the outturn cost in depreciated pounds will be about £1,000 million, even if the real costs remain unchanged.
The limit of guarantee under Clause 6 the Bill is unchanged, for the reasons that I have given, but it is normal for Bills to provide a basic limit covering rather more than the maximum obligation expected to be incurred. In this case that figure is £800 million and there is provision for that limit to be raised, sub-

ject to the approval of Parliament, should the developments require it.

Mr. John Lee (Birmingham, Hands-worth): Am I to understand that my hon. Friend does not envisage an absolute limit, and that the figures quoted in the Bill, enormous though they are, might not necessarily be the limit which the Government would be prepared to underwrite?

Mr. Carmichael: Making all allowances, we estimate that the cost will be about £800 million, and, as in all cases when such allowances are made, we have provided for an upper limit of £1,000 million, but this will require the approval of Parliament before we can go ahead with the expenditure.

Mr. Moate: rose—

Mr. Carmichael: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive my not giving way, but I have a great deal of ground to cover and a number of questions to answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) spoke about British Railways' share in the tunnel. Perhaps he has forgotten that British Railways have a share in Channel Tunnel Investment Ltd., and therefore their total interest in the project approaches that of the French Railways, SNCF, which is about a 13 per cent. share altogether.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton also referred to the geology of the area. I agree with those who have said that there is no real comparison between the geology of the Channel Tunnel area, where there is a chalk base, and the unknown geology of mountain areas such as the Alps.
We shall be reviewing the financial arrangements as a whole during the course of our reassessment, and this will include the prospects of cost overrun. I should not like to go into these matters before we have had a chance to review them, but the £37 million to which my hon. Friend referred is the cost of engineering and management of the project. The fee to Rio Tinto-Zinc is about £6 million, of which more than half will be forfeit if the costs overrun the estimates in real terms. I assume that when my hon. Friend referred to £37 million as management cost he was


thinking in terms of commission, which is very much less.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) spoke about the railways. The belief is that present plans provide for both freight liner container services and normal motorail services to points throughout the country on both sides of the Channel. We shall be examining the possibility of increasing these services. The form which they take, and the fact that they may account for a larger volume than our domestic services take will have to be considered, but I doubt whether more than a limited proportion of car traffic will ever be attracted all the way from the north of Scotland to the south of Italy or the centre of Germany.
There has been much talk about a rail-based tunnel. It is fundamental to our view of the project that it should be oriented much more strongly towards through-rail services, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear on 3rd April 1974. The tunnel as now proposed would provide for all foreseeable growth in through-rail traffic, as well as the ferry services, so a more rail-based strategy need not imply any physical change in the project itself. Similarly the provision in the present agreement—

Mr. W. F. Deedes: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? To what extent does that consideration make highspeed rail essential to the future plan?

Mr. Carmichael: Very high-speed rail would not be essential. One hon. Member referred to three hours-40-minutes journeys. A very high-speed limit, I think, would give two hours-40 minutes journeys. But that would be going into the next generation of high-speed trains and I do not think it would be necessary in order to provide the sort of service which I was discussing.
The tunnel as proposed would provide a foreseeable growth of through-rail traffic, as well as the ferry services, so that a more rail-based strategy need not imply any physical change in the project. The provisions in the present agreements which, in accordance with the agreement of 1966, bar discrimination by the Tunnel Authority, do not affect our ability to take steps generally to encourage the use

of railways which would affect traffic through the tunnel. The changed oil situation may affect the balance between rail and road traffic through the tunnel, and of course rail and air passenger traffic across the Channel. This will be reassessed during phase 2.
The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) raised a point that he has mentioned before, and we shall certainly use our powers under Section 26 of the Land Compensation Act, as applied by Clause 4 of the Bill, to buy property likely to be seriously affected by the construction or use of the works. We shall have to consider each request carefully on its merits, because I could not justify the use of public funds to purchase property which is not in practice likely to be seriously affected.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) confused the timetable of this Bill with that of the rail link. The latter is not covered by the Bill and the consultations on the rail link are not really relevant at this point. The vital point is that there will be a full re-assessment of the project. In addition, the work will be monitored by the Government and there will be independent advice available on re-assessment to my right hon. Friend. This Bill does not deal with the rail link itself. That will be dealt with by a special Bill which will have a special procedure and will provide for close scrutiny by the committee which is to be set up.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South referred to some figures. I have no idea from where he got his figures of £18 million and £20 million. Neither the Croydon study nor the committee commissioned by British Rail has yet made available any figures to the Department of the Environment. This proposal will certainly be considered, but it is, strictly speaking, a matter for the British Rail Bill. We shall be glad to consider any detailed evidence of hardship cases raised by the hon. Gentleman, but he must appreciate that it is not possible to deal with problems of purchase before the line has been settled.
Coming to the many points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees), I think he will realise that to reply to his remarks would be almost like replying to a whole debate,


but I shall be pleased to speak to him and try to put his mind at rest.

Mr. Peter Rees: Would the hon. Gentleman reply to me by letter, so that at least my constituents can see tangible evidence of his thinking, rather than by a garbled conversation between himself and myself?

Mr. Carmichael: I think that is a very reasonable suggestion and I look forward to receiving a letter from the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Rees: I have already made my points to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Carmichael: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman. I shall certainly make a point of writing a letter. I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was going to put his points in writing, but I was forgetting that we have note takers here.
May I now refer to the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) and apologise for not being here when she spoke. I shall read the report of her speech with great care. Some notes of her speech were made by some of my hon. Friends. I am extremely conscious of the Scottish situation. 1 do not think I could be considered a European in the normal party political sense in the Palace of Westminster. I have always felt that in Scottish terms—and I look at most things very carefully in Scottish terms—the tunnel would be of value to Scotland.
When I was previously in the old Ministry of Transport—I was concerned about the tunnel even before then—the idea of putting goods on rail and sending them to Düsseldorf or Bremen or such places attracted me. I do not think that in my mind there was any direct European connotation. I am sorry that we in Scotland are not nearer to Europe and that we ourselves could not have a tunnel. I am conscious of the proposals for the land bridge across the central belt, the waistline, of Scotland. I do not think the tunnel by any means precludes the possibility of this, because the tunnel will be concerned with a relatively narrow section of an already busy waterway. Anything which improves communication between Scotland, the South, Wales and

so on, and the wider markets of Europe has my agreement.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Would the hon. Gentleman comment on my specific question, whether the Secretary of State has conducted a study on the effects on the Scottish economy of the proposed Channel Tunnel?

Mr. Carmichael: I have personally looked at it very closely as a Scotsman —indeed, as a Glaswegian—and I should emphasise that it is intended to make an additional study, taking into account such points as the hon. Lady has raised. The Government have always been extremely conscious of those parts of the country which need more help than others, and I am particularly concerned with that.
I should like at another time, perhaps in a seminar, to discuss the question of Scottish roads because I feel very strongly about them. I do not have the same views as the hon. Lady has, but that is another matter.
Interest has been expressed in the debate about the form of outside advice which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has in mind. Phase 2 provides elaborate machinery for a review of the financial and economic aspects of the project, but my right hon. Friend wishes to have independent outside advice on whether other studies should be put in hand. He also wishes to have a group to which he can put specific points as these studies proceed, and to form a view on the studies when they are complete. My right hon. Friend does not envisage a public inquiry because the existing machinery for a review is fairly adequate. Nor does he think it necessary to put studies in train by other consultants which would duplicate at considerable expense work already in hand. What is essential is to ensure that necessary studies are undertaken on a sound basis and that the material before the House at the end of the day contains the fullest spectrum of informed advice.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I am fascinated to know what is the scope of the searching re-assessment. As I listen to my hon. Friend I am coming more and more to believe that the Government are committed to completing the project. I put to him seriously: what is


the scope of The inquiry and can there seriously be any prospect of withdrawing from the commitment once the provisions of this Bill are enacted?

Mr. Carmichael: I am sorry that I gave way to my hon. Friend. Had he heard my right hon. Friend's opening speech he would have appreciated that we are very far from making a final decision. The whole point of this Bill is so that more information can be obtained. What my right hon. Friend has said quite clearly—as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—is that he wants a monitoring group, which has not yet been involved in the gathering of material and the general reviews, to look at new evidence and to advise him on certain points from the new evidence.
The purpose of reintroducing the Bill is to keep open the option of going ahead with the project should a thorough reassessment of it show that that would be

right. The Bill itself is largely a technical measure. It does not of itself involve any additional commitments. But if it is not passed—this is very important —we shall have killed the project by default. I do not think that we want to do that. We shall have killed the project by default because we shall be unable to ratify the treaty, to sign Agreement No. 3 or to start the main phase 3 works in mid-1975. The decision on whether to go ahead beyond the end of phase 2 will not be prejudged by the passage of the Bill. The House will be asked to consider that quite separately next year in the light of the results of a full examination of this project.

I believe in a reassessment of the project. I sincerely invite the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 63.

Division No. 15.]
AYES
[8. 15 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Conlan, Bernard
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)


Adley, Robert
Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Freeson, Reginald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cope, John
Fry, Peter


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cordle, John
Galpern, Sir Myer


Archer, Peter (Warley, West)
Costain, A. P.
Gardiner, George (Reigate&amp;Banstead)


Ashley, Jack
Cox, Thomas
Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)


Ashton, Joe
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Cunningham, G.(Islington,S&amp;F'[...]y)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Awdry, Daniel
Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whiteh'v'n)
Ginsburg, David


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Golding, John


Banks, Robert
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gourley, Harry


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Deakins, Eric
Graham, Ted


Bates, Alf
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)
Grant, John (Islington, C.)


Baxter, William
Delargy, Hugh
Gray, Hamish


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Dempsey, James
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Benyon, W.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Doig, Peter
Hamling, William


Bishop, E. S.
Dormand, J. D.
Hampson, Dr. Keith


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hardy, Peter


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cunn, James A.
Harper, Joseph


Booth, Albert
Dunnett, Jack
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Havers, Sir Michael


Bradley, Tom
Durant, Tony
Hawkins, Paul


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eadie, Alex
Heffer, Eric S.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Higgins, Terence


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Elliott, Sir Robert
Hill, James A.


Brown,Bob(Newcastle upon Tyne,W.)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Holland, Philip


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Proven)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Hooley, Frank


Buchan, Norman
English, Michael
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)


Budgen, Nick
Ennals, David
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)


Campbell, Ian
Ewing, Harry (St'ling,F'kirk&amp;G'm'th)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cant, R. B.
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Hunt, John


Carlisle, Mark
Eyre, Reginald
Hunter, Adam


Carmichael, Neil
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hurd, Douglas


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Faulds, Andrew
Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)


Channon, Paul
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Jackson, Colin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
James, David


Clegg, Walter
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jenkins, Hugh (W'tvorth, Putney)


Clemitson, Ivor
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
John, Brynmor


Cockcroft, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull,W.)


Cocks, Michael
Form, Michael, Rt. Hn.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Cohen, Stanley
Ford, Ben
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Cuncannon, J. D.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton Coldfield)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)




Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Mills, Peter
Sims, Roger


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sinclair, Sir George


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Molloy, William
Skeet, T. H. H.


Judd, Frank
Moonman, Eric
Small, William


Kaufman, Gerald
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Snape, Peter


Kelley, Richard
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spence, John


Knox, David
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spriggs, Leslie


Lambie, David
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)


Lamborn, Harry
Morris, Michael (Northampton. S.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth,Fulh'm)


Lamond, James
Moyle, Roland
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lawrence, Ivan
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stott, Roger


Lawson,George(Motherwell&amp;Wishaw)
Murray, Ronald King
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Swain, Thomas


Lever, Rt Hn. Harold
Oakes, Gordon
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ogden, Eric
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lipton, Marcus
O'Malley, Brian
Tinn, James


Lomas, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Tomlinson, John


Loughlin, Charles
Orbach, Maurice
Tomney, Frank


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Owen, Dr. David
Torney, Tom


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Padley, Walter
Townsend, C. D.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Tuck, Raphael


McCartney, Hugh
Palmer, Arthur
Tugendhat, Christopher


McElhone, Frank
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)
Urwin, T. W.


MacFarguhar, Roderick
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


MacGregor, John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


McGuire, Michael
Pendry, Tom
Waddington, David


Mackenzie, Gregor
Perry, Ernest G.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


MacLennan, Robert
Phipps, Dr. Colin
Wakeham, John


Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Price, William (Rugby)
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Warren, Kenneth


Magee, Bryan
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wellbeloved, James


Mahon, Simon
Rifkind, Malcolm
White, James


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitehead, Phillip


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Marquand, David
Rodgers, William (Teesside,St'ckton)
Whitlock, William


Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Roper, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rose, Paul B.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Mather, Carol
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rowlands, Edward
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


Mayhew, Christopher(G'wh,W'wch,E)
Sainsbury, Tim
Woodall, Alec


Mayhew, Patrick (RoyaIT'bridgeWells)
Sandelson, Neville
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Meacher, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Woof, Robert


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shersby, Michael



Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Millan, Bruce
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark,Dulwich)
Mr. Laurie Pavitt and


Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Sillars, James
Mr. Donald Coleman.




NOES


Ancram, M.
Kinnock, Neil
Sandelson, Neville


Beith, A. J.
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sedgemore, Bryan


Bell, Ronald
Lee, John
Selby, Harry


Body, Richard
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Silverman, Julius


Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
MacCormack, Iain
Stallard, A. W.


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Macfarlane, Neil
Stanley, John


Cryer, G. R.
Madden, M. O. F.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Edge, Geoff
Marten, Neil
Taverne, Dick


Evans, John (Newton)
Mawby, Ray
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Flannery, Martin
Moate, Roger
Thorn, Stan (Preston, S.)


Freud, Clement
Morgan, Geraint
Tyler, Paul


George, Bruce
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Watt, Hamish


Hatton, Frank
Pardoe, John
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're,E)
Parry, Robert
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Prescott, John
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Huckfield, Leslie
Redmond, Robert
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Reid, George



Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. David Steel and


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mrs. Winifred Ewing.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Ordered,

That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Eight Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection

Ordered,

That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than 7th May 1974 (together with any Petition standing referred to the Select Committee under any Order of this House in the last Session) and
(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,
being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.

Ordered,

That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

Ordered,

That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.

Ordered,

That the Committee have power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them.

Ordered,

That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr.Mulley.

Orders of the Day — CHANNEL TUNNEL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to provide for the construction and operation of a railway tunnel system under the English Channel, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required

for fulfilling guarantees given by the Treasury in relation to money borrowed for the purpose of providing finance for the construction and maintenance of the tunnel system subject to a limit of £1,000 million in so far as the sums are required for the repayment principal, and the payment into that Fund of sums received in pursuance of arrangements with the French Government towards the fulfilment of guarantees so given;
(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required for contributing, in accordance with those arrangements, towards the fulfilment of guarantees given by or on behalf of the French Government in relation to money borrowed for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (1) above subject to a limit of £500 million in so far as the payments are required for the repayment of principal;
(3) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required to meet expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—

(a) in fulfilling any obligations or exercising any rights which are or become his in pursuance of any agreement between the Secretary of State and other persons relating to the construction of the tunnel system;
(b) in making payments for land vested in or acquired by him under the said Act of the present Session or payments of compensation for loss in connection with the exercise by the Secretary of State of powers of acquiring land under that Act; or
(c) in carrying on the construction of the tunnel system in the event of the abandonment of the construction of that system by the other persons referred to in sub-paragraph (a)above;
(4) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment for land so acquired or otherwise by reason of the exercise of any statutory powers in connection with construction of the tunnel system;
(5) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums received or recovered by the Secretary of State in connection with or arising out of the construction, maintenance or operation of the tunnel system or the acquisition of land for the construction, maintenance or operation of that system or the disposal of land so acquired;
(6) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of such sums as are necessary to enable the Secretary of State to make loans to the British Channel Tunnel Board constituted by the said Act of the present Session (hereafter referred to as 'the Board'), and the payment into that fund of sums paid to him by way of repayments of such loans or payment of interest thereon
(7) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of sums required for fulfilling any guarantee given by the Treasury in relation


to money lent to the Board by persons other than the Secretary of State, and the payment into that Fund of sums received by the Treasury by way of repayment of sums issued in fulfilment of such guarantees or interest on the sums so issued;
(8) the payment by the Secretary of State into the Consolidated Fund of sums paid to him by the Board.—[Mr. Mulley.]

WAYS AND MEANS

CHANNEL TUNNEL

Resolved,

That any Act of the present Session providing for the construction and operation of a railway tunnel system under the English Channel may include—

(a) provision treating, for the purposes of liability to tax, the discharge of functions in relation to that system as the carrying on of a trade by the British Channel Tunnel Board constituted by that Act: and
(b) provision affecting the computation of tax on that Board.—[Dr. Gilbert.]

VALUE ADDED TAX

8.26 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): I beg to move,
That the Value Added Tax (General) (No. 1) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 542), a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.
The effect of the order is to implement the intention announced by my right hon. Friend in his Budget speech to apply the standard rate of VAT from 1st April to soft drinks, confectionery and other inessential foods which used to be charged with purchase tax, and also to road fuels and light oils which bear the full rate of hydrocarbon oil duty.
There has been some criticism from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments about the order. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is with me on the bench tonight and will be prepared, with your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to intervene in the debate on this point.
As my right hon. Friend explained in his Budget Statement, the changes he has made in indirect taxation represent a shift in price from essential to less essential goods, and in particular have gone a long way towards covering the demand

effects of our proposals for subsidies on essential foodstuffs. This was an important part of my right hon. Friend's decision that the Budget should be demand neutral.
Given that decision, revenue had to be raised to meet vital expenditure on pensions and housing, as well as essential goods. In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend had little hesitation in deciding that expenditure on inessential consumption should contribute a fair share of revenue to the Exchequer.
My right hon. Friend increased the duties on alcoholic drinks and tobacco, which remained largely untouched during the spending spree of the previous Chancellor, and it was only appropriate that expenditure on the so-called purchase tax foods should be brought back into the field of indirect taxation. It cannot reasonably be argued that sweets and chocolates, no matter how enjoyable, even if a trifle fattening, are essential for a healthy diet. I say this despite the claim which, I understand, is made that some of them may have a protein content little short of that of pressed caviar.
There is nothing novel about the proposal to impose indirect taxation on inessential foods. The House will recall that purchase tax was first imposed on ice cream, soft drinks, sweets and similar products in 1962. It probably took a lot of courage on the part of the then Chancellor to take the risk of going down in history as the Chancellor who first taxed children's spending money, but I am sure there is now a broad measure of agreement that the judgment was right, to broaden the scope of the purchase tax by including some articles which most people would consider no less suitable for taxation than those which were already included.
That the judgment was right is borne out by the fact that all successive Chancellors have regarded confectionery, soft drinks and ice cream as inessential foods suitable for taxation. In 1969 my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins) applied purchase tax to potato crisps and roasted and salted nuts. In 1972 the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) decided, rightly in my view, that these inessential foods should be charged with VAT at the standard rate.
Perhaps I might remind the House of what the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) who, I understand, will be opening for the Opposition, and who seems to be frowning at me rather fiercely, told us during Committee on the Finance Bill in 1972:
It would be inappropriate at a time when we are broadening the tax base, which is the object of the VAT, actually to narrow it in respect of some previously taxed items."—[OFFICIAL REFORT, 10th May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 1491–2.]
This was, of course, at the time when the hon. Member was constantly telling us that VAT was a "broad based comprehensive tax".
It therefore came as a considerable surprise to most of us that just before VAT was due to come into operation, the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale had a last minute change of mind and decided to zero-rate sweets and the other inessential foods which had been subject to purchase tax. We on this side of the House strongly opposed that decision at the time. I will not dwell at length on it now, but it speaks volumes for Conservative social priorities that they prefer to give £100 million a year in tax to relieve ice cream, lollypops, candyfloss and peanuts instead of concentrating the money on measures to meet the needs of ordinary families.
Let me at this point say a few words about the taxation of food generally. Some commentators have professed to interpret my right hon. Friend's decision to propose to reintroduce taxation on inessential foods as the first move to taxing all foods. Any such interpretation is both ill-informed and irresponsible. We have repeatedly declared our total commitment to the principle of not taxing the essentials of life, including foods which enter into the staple diet of the ordinary family. That remains an important element of our policy of ensuring social justice in the area of taxation.
Ice cream, sweets and confectionery are not essentials, and families on low incomes will generally gain far more from our proposals to subsidise certain basic foods than they will lose through paying additional taxation here.
I turn now to the part of the order which deals with road fuels. The effect of this part of the order is to apply the standard rate of VAT to road fuels, both

petrol and derv, and other substitutable products such as power methylated spirits and gas for use as road fuel, and to other light oils on which the high rate of hydrocarbon oil duty is chargeable. Other hydrocarbon oils, lubricating oils and petroleum gases will continue to be zero-rated.
My right hon. Friend explained in his Budget Statement that he believed that there was a good case for increasing the taxation of road fuel. While appreciating that the cost of road fuels had increased significantly for reasons outside the control of any Government in this country he considered that in the context of a Budget which necessitated an increase in revenue from indirect taxation some increase in road fuel taxation would be both consistent with his general approach and would encourage the economical use of an imported commodity in uncertain supply.
I turn briefly to the objections raised in some quarters to what is described as the imposition of a tax on tax. There is no new principle involved in charging value added tax on the duty-inclusive price of petrol. The provisions of the 1972 Finance Act, which were stoutly defended by the hon. Member for Worthing—indeed, he waxed almost lyrical in his defence of VAT then—made it clear beyond any doubt that value added tax should be charged on the full value of goods, inclusive of any customs or excise duty. That was what was done when the previous Government decided, rightly in my view, to apply value added tax to alcoholic drinks and tobacco.
A moment's reflection will show that that is the only practicable course when one applies an ad valorem tax right down to the retail stage. It would be impracticable for retailers to charge tax on the value of goods exclusive of any customs or execise duty which had been charged at a much earlier point in the process of manufacture and distribution, as in most cases they would not know the amount of duty that had been paid.
Moreover, those who object to paying tax on tax overlook the fact that the Chancellor has to decide what contribution to total tax resources to seek from a particular commodity. If he were unable to get the right amount from value added tax he would have to increase the revenue duty.
Having decided that he had to look for a further contribution from road fuels towards the additional tax revenue he needed to pay for essential social policies my right hon. Friend recognised that a traditional increase in the duty on road fuel would enter directly into business costs and would not be justified. He therefore decided to apply the standard rate of VAT to road fuels, with an estimated gain to the revenue of about £150 million in a full year.
If, on the other hand, my right hon. Friend had decided instead to obtain the same sum by increasing the hydrocarbon oil duty, he would have had to raise the rate by nearly 3p a gallon across the board. This would have increased business costs by about £75 million a year, about one-fifth of which would have fallen on exports. The chief advantage of electing to apply VAT is that the tax burden will fall on only few business users.
I should now like to deal briefly with the impact of the change on retailers and the trade. We were in the fortunate position when drafting the order of being able to describe the goods to be covered by using definitions long established and long operated by the traders concerned. The definitions of sweets, confectionery and ice cream were introduced and have been operated since 1962. Those for potato crisps, salted nuts, and so on, date from 1969.
Some commentators have implied that the provisions in the order are defective because, for example, chocolate biscuits are chargeable with VAT but chocolate-covered cakes are not. As the hon. Member for Worthing knows only too well, this is a complicated issue. The late hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, Sir Gerald Nabarro, suggested that to tax everything, right across the board, was the only way to avoid anomalies in indirect taxation. Governments of both parties decided over the years, with purchase tax, that to do that was impossible. Any indirect tax is inevitably the subject of great good humour for those who want to examine the various anomalies in it. I do not complain, because I have had my fair share of that on VAT. All indirect taxes must incorporate liability borderlines. In the present context those borderlines have been operated for the

purposes of purchase tax, both by traders and by Customs and Excise, with relatively little difficulty for a number of years.
As for road fuel, the order uses the definitions operated and recognised throughout the trade for the purposes of the hydrocarbon oil duty. Nevertheless, I recognise that the traders affected have had some practical difficulties in giving effect to the order on rather less than one week's notice. For sellers of road fuel there was the need to prepare urgently for issuing VAT invoices to business customers, so that they could claim the input tax deductions to which they would be entitled, as well as the problems of adapting pumps and so on, which arise on any change in petrol and derv prices. For confectionery and soft drinks there was the repricing of hundreds of different lines. In both areas there were problems affecting the special VAT retail schemes.
Some retailers, including garages, will have found themselves no longer eligible for the scheme they had chosen, because of the increased proportion of standard-rated sales in their total turnover, and thus obliged to change to a different scheme. At the same time others will have wished to change because different schemes will suit them better in the new situation. Even those who are continuing to use the same scheme may have fresh calculations to make.
I acknowledge that representations were made by trade associations concerned for a postponement of the coming into operation of the order, and I regret that it was not practicable to give those concerned more time to think out those matters. I am sure the House will agree that there is no virtue in delaying the introduction of new taxes on consumption any longer than is absolutely necessary. Any undue delay would lead only to distortions in the pattern of trade in the goods affected.
All the trade bodies concerned fully understand, I think, that Customs and Excise are ready to look at any further problems and give any help that they reasonably can. I feel it is a tribute to the resource and resiliency of those trades that little further need for this help seems to have arisen, and that the changes have on the whole been introduced remarkably smoothly.
Finally, I turn to possible alternatives to these tax increases. Clearly this is not the occasion for a detailed discussion of Budget strategy, but any discussion of this order must take into account the fact that the proposals it contains will yield altogether £275 million in a full year.
We could not have forgone a sum of that magnitude without either increasing the Government's total borrowing requirement, or cutting down the funds available for the Government's programme for subsidising essential foodstuffs and for other priority expenditure, or further increasing other taxes. None of these courses would have been acceptable to us.
The House knows already why my right hon. Friend decided to reduce the borrowing requirement, and why, unlike the Opposition, we think it necessary and desirable to subsidise essential foodstuffs. However, it may be worth spelling out what the implications would have been for other taxes if we had decided to raise the £275 million in some other way.
It would have meant getting on for a 1p increase on the basic rate of income tax or over 1 per cent. on the standard rate of VAT, which applies to so many necessities as well as luxuries, or 7½p on a packet of cigarettes in addition to the 5p increase already made. If we had decided to get the money from alcoholic drink it would have meant a further 2p a pint on beer, plus another 10p on a bottle of wine, and another 30p on a bottle of spirits.
Our view was that, in a situation where we were asking for sacrifices from all who were able to make them, it made sense to ask for sacrifices also from the private motorist and from expenditure on inessential foodstuffs.
I suppose we may this evening have the Opposition claiming to be the motorist's friend. It should be recalled that under a Conservative Government the private motorist not only had difficulty in finding a house but he had difficulty finding a garage for his car. This Government will help the motorist and his family by creating the economic and social climate to enable him to enjoy a better standard of living. What is more, we shall at the same time ensure

that the motorist enjoys many miles of happy motoring.
The only argument left to the Opposition is that they would rather not subsidise food. The net result of such a policy would be to reduce the price of sweets, chocolates, etcetera, and to increase the price of bread and milk. That is the sort of irresponsible proposal that only this Opposition could support —that is, if on this occasion they were to decide to press the matter in the Division Lobby with perhaps slightly more than their customary 50 per cent. support. Whatever they decided to do, I strongly recommend and advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the order.

Mr. Robert Carr: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the net effect on the cost of living index? He talks about all these things as being inessentials. I doubt whether the ordinary family would regard them as quite so inessential, and they certainly enter into the cost of living of every ordinary family.

Mr. Barnett: The effects on the cost of living index must be seen in the context of the Budget as a whole and what was done to lower the index. The net effect of both these two items is, in the case of sweets and so on, 0·3 per cent. and in the case of petrol another 0·3 per cent.

Mr. Carr: No. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to say that, because it is not consistent with the view expressed by the Paymaster-General in an answer recorded in HANSARD.

Mr. Barnett: I will be happy to look up that reference, but my information is that it is 0·3 per cent. in each case.

Mr. Carr: indicated dissent.

Mr. Barnett: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. I have given the answer. It is 0·3 per cent. I will look up what my right hon. Friend said, unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to quote it to me now, when I am prepared to deal with it.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Since, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the House cannot amend statutory instruments, why did the Government put sweets and petrol together in the same statutory instrument when they could


easily have separated them into two statutory instruments? The merits of the two proposals are totally dissimilar.

Mr. Barnett: We wanted the House to have a good debate. It was hoped to start at seven o'clock and we have till 11.30 p.m. tonight, which is four and a half hours. That would have been too much to debate just one item, so we put the two together, and that gives the House an opportunity to debate both.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Before we proceed further I must inform the House that the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and the names of his right hon. and hon. Friends is not in order and cannot be called.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Terence Higgins: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has spelt out very clearly the purpose of the order. Unlike his speech in the Budget debate, which consisted almost entirely of an official brief, several sentences which he read out tonight sounded as though they might have been his own. After the answers he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), however, I do not think the House feels that he should sit down to cries of "Author" on this occasion.
This measure is a mistake. Before explaining the reasons, I remind the House of a number of things that the hon. Gentleman said when in opposition on the question of extending the coverage of value added tax by order. I am sure he has forgotten, for instance, what he said on 11th July 1972 in discussing an amendment on whether such measures should be taken by order. He said a large number of things about the matter on that occasion.
I had earlier emphasised, as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that the intention was to take these powers so that, if we found that there were anomalies or changes of that kind which needed to he rectified, we could do so without having main legislation in a Finance Bill. But that did not satisfy the hon. Gentleman. He said:

It is fair to sum up the Financial Secretary's contribution on that occasion by saying that the powers in any case have always been available under the purchase tax regulations and that the Government need the powers because anomalies may arise.
That was what I had said. The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
I do not concede the general case because I think that the powers are far too great in a tax as wide in scope as this one. If this provision is not amended we shall give the Government power to bring into tax items which have not been taxed to date, and what is more they will be able to do so by means of an order at the end of the day. Surely there cannot be a case for giving the Government this power in respect of food, unless it is intended at some time to slip in a tax on food by means of an order.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said:
It is right to remind the House that both under the previous Labour Government and under the Conservative Government that power "—
that is, the power we are now talking about to amend by order—
has never been used to impose purchase tax on wide categories of goods. It is essentially an instrument for making borderline adjustments or more occasionally for securing overall reductions in taxation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July 1972; Vol. 840, c. 1469, 1471.]
My right hon. Friend went on to give an undertaking that he would not support any measure which would use these powers other than for the purpose of minor amendments.
Despite what the Chief Secretary said on that occasion, however, he now puts before the House this order which clearly makes massive increases in taxation. We have little time to debate the matter. What is more important is that the order is not divisible, in the sense that we have to take it or leave it as a whole, even though it contains some disparate items and amounts in total to a large amount of revenue. If the matter had been proceeded with as it ought to have been, and as the Chief Secretary himself has clearly argued it should have been, by Finance Bill legislation, amendments could have been made and proposals could have been altered in a way in which they ought to have been altered. It is important to stress that the amounts involved are very large.
Let us consider some of the previous tax-increasing Budgets of the last Labour


Government. In November 1964 there was £300 million in extra taxation, in April 1965 £123 million, in May 1966 £258 million, in July 1966 £176 million and in November 1967 £200 million. We then had a big figure in 1968 of £923 million, while in November 1968 there was £250 million and in April 1969 £340 million.
One must quote these figures to bring out precisely the magnitude of what the Government are doing in the order. As the Chief Secretary has just pointed out, the revenue involved is £275 million, which is substantially more—as the House will see from the figures I have just given—than many of the massive tax increases imposed by the previous Labour Government which were subject to full four-day debates in the House, and discussion on Finance Bills in Committee and on Report and Third Reading. To bring this matter to the House at just after eight o'clock in the evening and to have only the amount of time which we now have for debate, without the matter being amendable or divisible, is an insult to the House. The Chief Secretary has a great deal of nerve to stand at the Dispatch Box and put this order before the House.
Technical questions also arise regarding the validity of the order. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is expert in these matters and if he is fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will have something to say which the House will need to consider very carefully.
I turn to the merits of the issue as such. We must first ask whether the order is necessary. The Chancellor's philosophy on indirect taxation was set out in his Budget Statement on 26th March when he said:
I deal with indirect taxation. Here my aim is to help pay the cost of reducing the price of the more essential goods by increasing the tax on the less essential.
The House has already spent some time this Session discussing the disadvantages of massive food subsidies and the indiscriminate way in which they are being given by the Government.
I quote from an article in The Times of 23rd April by Mr. Bernard Levin which I think put it very clearly. He said:

Take the question of food subsidies. The subsidy on bread, though meaningless itself in the short term (if will reduce the price of bread for everyone in the country by 37·5p a year, or roughly seven-tenths of a penny a week) is symbolically effective. Behind the symbolism, however, is the fact that the commitment to subsidies is open-ended so that—since the price of food will certainly continue to rise—the sum that will have to be spent on subsidies will also continue to rise without limit.
A little later, referring to a Question answered in the House he said:
the annual cost to the taxpayer of keeping Mr. Paul Getty's food bill down as much as those of pensioners would now not be £21 million but £200 million.
We cannot even argue that the Government are robbing the rich to pay the poor because the tax will not be charged, under the Government's arrangements, on this or that millionaire's caviar. That will still be zero-rated, in my view rightly, because I am against taxing food. It is a bizarre argument to say that a millionaire's caviar should not be taxed but that the ice cream, crisps, orange squash and rose-hip drink which constitute a heavy financial burden for large families with low incomes should be taxed. It brings out the essential absurdity of the way in which the Government go about making this distinction between what is and what is not essential.
The Chancellor tried in his Budget speech to give a human touch to the question and said:
I appreciate that this step"—
he was referring to the contents of this order—
may be unpopular with the children, although I met a delightful young lady outside No. 11 Downing Street this morning who recommended me to take precisely this step."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 26th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 308–9.]
It rather stretches credulity to imagine that some small child should have gone along to Downing Street on Budget Day to waylay the Chancellor and say "Please tax my sweets". I find that that stretches the imagination a trifle. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman wished to bring out a homely analogy.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Chancellor was lying to the House. This was something that actually happened that morning when a group of young


children came to the area of No. 11. It was reported in the news.

Mr. Higgins: I do not doubt what the Chancellor said. I am saying that it was singularly unfortunate that it happened. The Chancellor is very much out of touch with the ordinary housewife with a family of young children if he really believes that these items are not important in her budget. It is no good the Chief Secretary saying that these items are not essential. The reality is that they are bought in large quantities by such families and therefore affect the cost of living of these families. They have to pay the tax, and the large amounts of revenue mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are produced by families in this group, many of them with low incomes.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that for mothers with young children VAT on water is even more serious?

Mr. Higgins: I leave my hon. Friend to make that point herself. When I tabled a Question yesterday to the Financial Secretary asking what would be the effect on the cost of living of various families, he gave the remarkable answer that the data required were not available. Surely the Family Expenditure Survey provides the necessary data to give us information on this. I am not satisfied with the answer he gave.
The present Chancellor of the Exchequer in the debates in 1972 made great play of the harmonisation of VAT. Since then we have had a directive from the EEC on tax harmonisation. I believe that it is essential to ensure the continuance of zero rating and to persuade the members of the Community that it is an advantage, not least because it can prevent VAT from being regressive.
The Chief Secretary protested that there was a distinction between food in general and the food covered by the order, but he will have difficulty in convincing the European Community that that is so. I imagine that the conversation might go in this way: "We must have zero rating because we want to give relief on food." Someone on the other side of the Channel might say "Does that mean that you do not tax any food?" The answer would be "We tax some food."

The question might be asked "Luxuries or essentials?" We then get into the argument that I have just rehearsed.
The hon. Gentleman's position in these negotiations is somewhat weakened if any food is taxed. The success of the measures taken in the EEC and reported in The Times on 15th March to get the Commission to take back its proposals so that the question of zero rating could be reconsidered is to be greatly welcomed. I am glad that the Chief Secretary has taken an apparently abrasive line on this, but the creation of the precedent in the order is extremely unfortunate.
I turn next to the effect on the cost of living of the first part of the order. I was astonished by the Chief Secretary's reply when I suggested in the closing stages of my earlier intervention that he had the figures wrong. I will tell him the answer which the Paymaster-General gave to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) who asked what would be the effect on the retail price index of
(1) the imposition of value added tax upon confectionery, soft drinks, ice cream and potato crisps; (2) the imposition of value added tax and other extra duties upon petrol, derv and oil; (3) the imposition of extra tax, duty and value added tax upon tobacco; and (4) the imposition of extra tax, duty and value added tax upon alcoholic beverages.
The Paymaster-General replied:
The increases in the retail price index in respect of each of the four indirect tax changes listed by the right hon. and learned Member are 0·3 per cent., 0·3 per cent., 0·8 per cent. and 0·35 per cent., respectively.
He went on to say:
there are no indirect effects."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April 1974; Vol. 871, c. 416.]
I hope that the Chief Secretary will take that reply into account.
In his Budget speech the Chancellor said that the threshold agreement had somewhat inhibited indirect tax changes. Had it not been for the threshold agreement, the Chancellor clearly would have made bigger indirect tax changes. Nevertheless there are indirect tax effects because, if the overall effect on the cost of living is as suggested in the answer to which I have referred, the threshold agreement will be triggered earlier, which is likely to have an effect on aggregate demand which will tend to be inflationary. It is not true that there are no indirect


effects, and this must be taken into account because the Government have introduced a Budget which will increase prices.
I turn to retailers' problems. There have been changes in regard to VAT schemes, but the hallmark of our introduction of VAT was consultation. It is a great shame that the Government should have put themselves in a position of having to make changes of this kind at short notice. A letter which I have received from a trader points out the difficulties which face him and his firm. He says:
The cost in time and paper work with this manoeuvre will be colossal. For a firm like ours, with six shops and paying no VAT, there will now have to be two tills at each shop and all the calculations involved with VAT … We ask you to try to get this crazy idea cancelled and revert to the only sensible idea, which is to have all foods free from VAT.
We believe it is right that all food should be free of VAT. Despite the Chief Secretary's quotations, we never imposed VAT on food and we were right not to do so.
Secondly, I turn to the question of petrol and other road fuel. Again the order is not subject to amendment and will not be brought before the House in such a way that it can be debated. I have some fascinating quotations on this topic from Labour Members when in opposition—indeed, from right hon. Members who now occupy positions on the Government Front Bench. I wish to give two by way of example.
My first quotation is from the present Leader of the House—it is fashionable to quote from him—when speaking at Stockport on 13th February 1974, shortly after there had been massive increases in the price of petroleum. The right hon. Gentleman said:
Of the 47½p you pay now for four-star petrol, 22½p goes straight to Mr. Heath in tax".
That was not strictly true, so far as I know. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
A sensible Government who wanted to restrain prices would reduce the tax.
The right hon. Gentleman is now a member of a Government who seek to introduce this order which will raise revenue on petrol by £150 million. He should perhaps consider slightly what his own position is.
I then have a quotation from the Prime Minister when speaking to an Eastern Region Labour Party rally on 22nd October. As far as I know, he has not uttered on the subject since.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend reads the quotation, I wonder whether he has noticed on the reverse side of the order that the names of the two Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury who signed the order were Harold Wilson and Denis Healey.

Mr. Higgins: I had noticed that, and I thought it was an interesting point. Let me bring to my hon. Friend's attention what the present Prime Minister said on 22nd October. He said that
higher petrol and oil prices would give a further twist to the inflationary spiral, but the Government had 'a ready weapon' to meet his threat—tax cuts and subsidies. The aim must be to keep down the cost of oil, whether as motive power or as a fuel, to the present level.
I know that the collective responsibility of the present Government seems to be a little weaker than normal, but this is ridiculous. Is the Prime Minister aware of the order we are now debating? He has not expressed any change of view since the quotation I have just made.
We should carefully consider the arguments advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. He said that its aim was to conserve the supply of oil, to reduce the pressure on our road space and to make life more tolerable in our towns and countryside. The question arises not whether the order will make things more difficult for those who live in the countryside and who look to the motor car as their only means of getting about, but whether the Government believe that the demand for petrol is elastic or inelastic. It appears to be a little inconsistent on the one hand to argue that the effect of the tax increase will massively reduce the amount of traffic on our roads and on the other hand not to give a clear indication of what the overall effect on demand will be. If the Government increase the tax in the way proposed and a gallon less of petrol is bought, they lose not only VAT but a considerable amount of the duty they already collect. We should like to have from the Financial Secretary an indication of what he thinks will be the net effect on the revenue as a result.
We believe that the order is a mistake. We deplore the way in which it has been brought before the House because it is not amendable and it is not divisible. We believe that it will have a regressive effect on many families. It will tend to raise industrial costs. Even the Chief Secretary agreed that it would not be possible to deduct all the input tax on every business. It will put forward the date on which threshold agreements are triggered. We believe that it is inflationary and therefore that it cannot be justified to bring it before the House in this way. For those reasons, the Opposition cannot support it.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I do not want to embarrass my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, but there is one matter which plumbs the depths of financial muddle in this order. I refer to the VAT on petrol.
Before the Budget, a gallon of 4-star petrol cost 50p. I took the trouble to telephone by hon. Friend's office today and from one of his secretaries I obtained the information that of that 50p, 22½p was tax. In other words, the value of the petrol without the tax was 27½p. However, the tax which is being imposed now is 10 per cent. not of the 27½p—the value added—but 10 per cent. of the total 50p. Therefore it is a tax on a tax—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Hear, hear.

Mr. Tuck: It is nothing more than highway robbery. Value added tax means just that. It does not mean a tax on tax. Although I shall not vote against the order—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Shame.

Mr. Tuck: I have no doubt that the Opposition will. I said that I did not want to embarrass my hon. Friend. I ask him to look at it again. Let the value added tax be a tax added on the value and not a tax on the tax, which in my opinion is quite wrong.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: It is always a matter for concern when this House stands on the verge of approving a statutory instrument, one of whose provisions will lead to an anomalous absurdity.
I have in my hand a large, roundish, multi-celled juicy, sweet or acid fruit enclosed in a bright reddish-yellow, tough rind. It is a fruit which has been enjoyed in Europe since the eleventh century. We know that in the year 1290 the Queen of Edward I purchased seven of them from a Spanish ship which had docked at Portsmouth. Why she purchased so few I do not know. Perhaps it was a special offer—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The VAT on them.

Mr. Pattie: For several hundred years we have enjoyed this fruit without realising that it possesses vitamins. We have discovered vitamins in more recent years. These large, roundish, multi-celled, juicy—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps not aware, because he has not been very long in this place, that there are certain conventions about producing objects. There was in fact an occasion on which eggs were produced, and it was ruled to be dangerous in case anyone should throw an egg. On another occasion some other edible object was produced, and the egg incident was referred to. I shall be grateful if the hon. Member will refrain from holding the exhibit throughout the remainder of his speech.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I recall visually noting the occasion when one of my hon. Friends representing a Kent constituency not only produced an apple in the Chamber but ate it. Therefore, would it be in order for my hon. Friend to eat the orange after his speech, or must he eat it now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must explain that in the ruling to which I have referred it had been ruled by Mr. Speaker that it is not good practice to bring into the Chamber objects unnecessary for the debate. Regarding the eating of an apple, a ruling was then given that Mr. Speaker would not interfere. However, Mr. Speaker reminded hon. Members of their responsibility for the dignity of the House.

Mr. Pattie: I am grateful for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not exhibit the offending fruit again. It is in the careful custody of my hon. Friends.
None the less, in recent years the aforementioned fruit was discovered to be very strong in Vitamin C. In December 1941 the wartime Government decided to introduce certain measures designed to protect various sections of society which were nutritionally vulnerable. I refer to young children and expectant and nursing mothers. Therefore, the Government decided to issue to them free cod liver oil and free pure concentrated orange juice, the latter item ironically being imported from the United States in wartime conditions under the Lend-lease programme.
It seems that the Government of 1941 had a higher regard for concentrated orange juice than the Government of 1964 and of Governments since. In 1964 quick frozen concentrated orange juice was included in the purchase tax proposals in Group 35, as it was called, and put in with squashes and other soft drinks to which it bears no resemblance whatsoever. Squashes are a combination of water and synthetic materials plus a little of the genuine article.
We are talking about a 6¼ fluid ounce can which contains not the equivalent of, but the juice from, 12 oranges. When a pint and a half of water is added to the contents of the tin we then have the juice from 12 oranges.
The Government will no doubt say that the housewife is at liberty to purchase 12 oranges—this evening the canteen price was 5½p per orange—to take them home, squeeze them to extract the juice, and thereby get her concentrated orange juice. The point is that if she purchases 12 oranges, the fresh natural product, they will attract no VAT, whereas the juice from 12 oranges when put into a can does attract VAT. This must be one of the more absurd proposals that we have seen in modern years.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is not the possible explanation that the fresh oranges come from either Spain or South Africa and that this Government are anxious to increase trade with those countries?

Mr. Pattie: I think that oranges also come from other sources.
The process here is that, immediately after the harvest, the orange has its juice removed and this is then quick frozen so

that the vitamin content is retained. I am surprised that the Chancellor has not carried his logic right through and put VAT on the fresh fruit itself, because the large, roundish multi-celled, juicy, acid or sweet fruit enclosed in a bright, reddish-yellow tough rind has at least got pips which he can delight in squeezing, whereas the poor, quick-frozen concentrated orange juice has none.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I cannot possibly follow what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) about anomalies over oranges and orange juice, but there are other serious anomalies in this order.
Let me first join the protests that have been made from this side of the House at the fact that the order includes two important matters, one of which is wholly invalid, and the other which it is possible to debate. Had this order been divided into the two subjects we should have had proper debates on each, and I deprecate the practice of trying to get through two matters in one order when one of those, as I hope to show, is entirely invalid and creates not only anomalies but a most extraordinary situation.
The explanatory note to the order says that the order imposes VAT "on certain food products and drinks" that—in short —are called lollies or sweets and are set out in the four categories in the explanatory note, but the order itself makes no specific reference to those goodies. All that it does in this respect is, by Article 3, to revoke the order which zero-rated sweets, that is Value Added Tax (Food) Order 1973, which is No. 386 of that year. That revocation can have the effect of imposing VAT on sweets and lollies, and so on, only if it revives the law that existed before the 1973 order became effective; in other words, if it revives in full Group 1 in Schedule 4 to the Finance Act 1972.
The history of this is that Section 12 of the Finance Act 1972 deals with zero-rated food as a whole as defined in Group 1 in Schedule 4, but Group 1 in Schedule 4 also listed certain exceptions to the zero-rating of food, and those exceptions were what was called the lollies list. Before the 1972 Act came into operation the 1973 order substituted a new Group 1 Schedule 4 which omitted the lollies


list. In other words, they were no longer an exception to zero rating. They were therefore zero rated.
Now we have this new order which revokes the 1973 No. 386 order and assumes by the explanatory note that by rubbing out that 1973 order one magically restores Group 1 Schedule 4 to the 1972 Act. Before 1889 that magic might have been effective. Under the common law, that revival by repeal of a repeal did happen, but in 1889 there was passed the Interpretation Act, Section 38(2) of which said that where an Act passed after the commencement of that Act
repeals any other enactment, then, unless the contrary intention appears, the repeal shall not—
(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect".
It is, therefore, abundantly clear that this order does not do what the explanatory note says it intends to do as regards the lollies and the sweets. The repeal of the 1973 order has not restored Group 1 in Schedule 4 to the 1972 Act, so there is now no Group 1 of Schedule 4 to the 1972 Act, nor is there a 1973 order. What does that mean? It means quite simply that at the present moment no food is zero-rated. All food is subject to VAT. I do not know why I should put the Government right in this matter, but that is the effect of the order, that all food is subject to VAT.
The Government can only avoid that conclusion by the completely fallacious argument that an order is not an enactment. An order is subordinate legislation. Nevertheless, it is legislation and it is enacted. There was a case in which a learned judge said that in the Road Traffic Act 1960 "enactment" did not mean "regulations". But what he said was:
The word 'enactment' may include within its meaning not only a statute but also a statutory regulation but, as it seems to me, the word does not have that wide meaning in the Act of 1960.
He then went on to say why it did not, implying that elsewhere it would. That is the only authority on which the Government can base their argument that the explanatory note to this order is correct and that the order has revived Group 1, Schedule 4 to the 1972 Act. I submit that it has not done anything of the sort.
The result is that we are left in this ridiculous position of having no Group 1, Schedule 4 to the 1972 Act. That was wiped out in 1973 and it has not been revived. The result of passing this order is that all food will be subject to VAT.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I do not think I will follow the line of argument adduced by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), important though it is, because the concern of myself and my colleagues is the second part of the order. I entirely associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman and others have said about the way in which the Government have produced this order, covering the two unrelated subjects of sweets and petrol. It is all very well if, as happens, the Conservative Opposition is opposed to both, but there is no logical reason why they should be. They are unrelated subjects.
When the Chief Secretary smugly says that he thinks that it would be for the convenience of the House to take both these matters together, he knows perfectly well that it is nothing of the kind. It is the Government trying to be a bit too clever in order to get their business through, and this is not appreciated by the House. I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will take note of our strong feelings in this mater. We do not wish to see a repeat of omnibus orders of this kind.
In any Act of Parliament bringing in an affirmative procedure as opposed to a negative procedure, this House acts on the basis that each and every subject will be properly debated under the procedure laid down by the Act. By our procedure tonight we are certainly skirting around the spirit of the legislation. I therefore associate myself with the criticisms of the Government on that score.
I want to turn not to the question of these foods, because I think there is another view in addition to that stated by the Opposition. No mention has been made so far of the considerable evidence which has been sent to us from the medical profession, and in particular from the dental profession, about the effects of over-consumption of certain of the goods mentioned in this order. I speak as a


parent of young children. I remember their glee when the price of sweets went down and their sudden devotion to the Conservative cause as a result, but I thought it was wholly misplaced. I told them so at the time, and I was supported in that view by those who attend them medically. However, in all seriousness, there are two arguments on this question.
I and my colleagues who will be voting against the order are not concerned with that section of it which deals with sweets and so on. I am very concerned about the part which relates to fuel oils. We had a most extraordinary statement in the House yesterday in an Answer from the Under-Secretary for Energy, which has received inadequate publicity. When asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Dr. Winstanley) about his views on the rationing of petrol by price, the Under-Secretary said:
I would have thought that if there is no rationing of petrol—and we are all agreed that eventually we want to get rid of the present allocation system—we will have a situation in which rationing is by price."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April 1974; Vol. 872, c. 757.]
That sort of philosophy has a very dangerous effect in the rural areas of our country. The plain fact is that in the rural areas throughout Britain over several years bus services have been in decline and costs, both to operators of bus services and to those who travel on them, have been constantly increasing. Yet in his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer refered to this matter and said:
The normal VAT provisions for deducting input tax will apply to the VAT on road fuel purchased by all commercial and industrial undertakings registered for the tax, and neither industrial costs nor bus fares should therefore be affected by the increase."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March 1974, Vol. 871, c. 310.]
The extraordinary thing was that within exactly a week of that speech the Scottish Bus Group had a successful hearing before the Scottish Traffic Commissioners producing substantial increases in bus fares, some in my constituency. One of the group's arguments was that the Chancellor's statement covered only 85 per cent. of the mileages covered by the group's vehicles. Despite the widespread publicity given in newspapers and on television to undertakings that bus fares

would not rise—undertakings which the public accepted—the fact is that the rebates mentioned apply only to the fare stage sections of the companies' businesses. Therefore, the total costs of the companies have been directly affected, as have those of all road transport undertakings, by the Chancellor's measure.
I also believe that the cost of passenger transport in rural areas has not been adequately subsidised though the machinery of the Transport Act introduced by the previous Labour Government. I welcomed that at the time as something that was better than nothing, but in the light of experience I believe that it is no longer enough to try to leave the subsidy on buses in rural areas to local authorities, which very often are in the least able financial position to support these undertakings. By definition, a bus route very frequently passes through the areas of several different local authorities. It is a long and tedious business to get agreement on subsidies for particular services.
In recent years we have seen a pattern in which, because of inadequate support, rural bus services have fallen away. A mistake has been made in that successive Governments have closed railway lines—some closures justified, some unjustified—and the savings which each Government have claimed as a result of closures have not been transferred into subsidies for road transport in the areas affected.
My constituents feel very bitter about the fact that when the Waverley route from Edinburgh to Carlisle was closed, the Government of the day gave an assurance about adequate alternative transport, but the £750,000 alleged to have been saved has not been transferred to a more effective public transport system. Moreover, we appear to have lost sight of the proposals, which were being brought forward by the previous Government, for the releasing from public licensing of certain road vehicles. Are the Government able to say something soon about their intentions on that matter? It would help transport in rural areas if mini-buses and private cars could be used much more in order to get people to work. This is an area of policy which has been long delayed. We could have help in the rural areas if something of that kind came forward.
A basic fact of life which Ministers sometimes overlook is that in rural areas such as the Highlands or Borders of Scotland the use of a private car is an essential cost of getting to work, but this is not subject to any form of tax remission. This is a source of considerable grievance, but successive Chancellors—sometimes for good, sometimes for bad reasons—have refused to allow it. The proposal to increase the cost of petrol in this way comes on top of the very substantial natural increases which have occurred in the price of petrol because of the international situation.
I believe strongly that parties should not make sweeping promises in opposition which they are not prepared to redeem in government. On 20th October 1973 the present Prime Minister made a speech in Cambridge which was reported widely in the Sunday Press, no more widely than on the front page of the Sunday Mirror, where it carried the banner headline "Cut Petrol Tax." The political editor of the Sunday Mirror wrote:
Harold Wilson pulled out of the bag yesterday a plan to save Britain's motorists from predicted petrol price rises of up to 5p a gallon.
The Opposition leader called on the Government to offset the soaring cost of Arab oil by tax cuts and even subsidies. He said in Cambridge that if Chancellor Anthony Barber was concerned about the effect on the revenue he should:
Introduce an emergency crisis tax on land speculation …
He said, 'Petrol and some oil products are heavily taxed. The Government should do all in its power to stabilise oil prices by corresponding reductions in taxation.'
But Mr. Wilson's plan would also take in the cost of running a private car, an important item in millions of British budgets.
That general statement is particularly true for those living in rural areas. The then Leader of the Opposition gave us to understand that he believed it was right for the Government to use their powers to reduce the cost of petrol by reducing tax on petrol. Instead, eight months later we are asked to approve a proposal to increase the tax on petrol.
If the Government must increase the price of petrol, it could be done by other means and those living in rural areas who must use their private cars could be compensated. The regional employment

premium might be adapted as a method of operating some kind of grant for travel to work. There are other possibilities. The Liberal amendment, which has not been selected for debate, refers to the possibility of compensating those in rural areas in particular. Until the Government recognise that in such circumstances the cost of running a private car is an unavoidable cost and is not a luxury, my hon. Friends and I will continue to oppose tax increases of this kind.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: Three reasons were given by the Chancellor for the imposition of value added tax on petrol. As I understand it, the three reasons were these. It is argued first that it will help to conserve our supplies of oil, secondly that it will reduce the pressure on our road space, and finally that it will make life a little more tolerable in our towns and in the countryside. I believe that all these reasons are invalid.
First, will it help to conserve our supplies of oil if valued added tax is imposed on petrol? It is difficult to obtain statistics on the use of oil used for road fuel but I believe that there are indications that the amount of oil used to produce petrol is only about 15 per cent. of the total imported and that about half of that is used for commercial transport. It therefore follows that any reduction which could be achieved by the imposition of VAT on petrol for private transport will probably have a very insignificant effect on total supplies of oil.
If I am wrong about that and if a significant reduction in car usage were to be brought about by these fiscal means, I think that the consequences would be grave, because the transfer from private to public transport would considerably embarrass operators of public transport. As those of us who represent rural constituencies know, the public transport simply is not available to handle the traffic.
Further, increases in the price of petrol will in many cases be the last straw which will make a motorist decide to postpone the purchase of a new car or a newer replacement vehicle. It is therefore likely that the Chancellor will lose more revenue because of reduced car sales than he will gain by imposing VAT on petrol. I do not therefore believe that the first


argument—that the tax will help to conserve our supplies of oil—stands up on examination.
Will it reduce the pressure on our road space? The commercial users of cars and goods vehicles will be able to reclaim any VAT they pay on their petrol and, therefore, that traffic will not be reduced. But many people have to use their cars because they have no alternative. The housing situation has forced people to live considerable distances away from their employment and in areas where for various reasons there is simply not sufficient public transport.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that people have to get to work by using private cars. Where there is no public transport and a private car has to be used, it is a totally unfair imposition to add to people's other hardships by putting VAT on petrol. These people will have no option but to pay. It is not only the people in the rural areas who feel bitterly about this. Often in the towns public transport is also inadequate and a car is essential for getting to work. Such people also have no option but to pay up, and they too are being unfairly penalised. I do not think, therefore, that the tax will reduce the pressure on our road space.
The Chancellor envisages life becoming more tolerable through a reduction in the use of the private car. I think the Government realise the vital contribution made by commercial transport to the economy but they have signally failed to recognise the vital rôle of private transport in the life of the community. More than half the households in the country possess a motor car, and this represents two-thirds of the population. I for one utterly refute the suggestion that the use of the private car could possibly cause a deterioration in the quality of life. For two-thirds of the people of this country the car is an essential means of personal transport and is vital for maintaining an up-to-date standard of living. The buoyant demand for private cars leaves no room for doubt about that.
I do not believe that the imposition of the tax will achieve the Chancellor's objective and I do not believe that he will get the extra revenue he wants. The current price of petrol is 55p a gallon.

Of that, 22½p is customs and excise revenue, 27½p is the retail price and now there is another 5p VAT. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) was right in saying that this was a tax upon a tax. He said it was highway robbery and he made a powerful speech, but he has now left the Chamber and is not going to vote against the Government. It is iniquitous to levy a tax upon a tax particularly when tax already forms such a large part of the retail price. It is time the Government woke up to the fact that the private car is not a luxury for a privileged few but is an essential element in the transport of people and that it is just as desirable as public transport. I hope that many hon. Members will vote against the order.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I start on the basis of the jumble of the order. There was an opportunity in the last Session of Parliament to do something about that. The Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation, which looked at, among other things, the question of whether statutory instruments should be amendable, sat for more than a year. In the whole of that time no Liberal Member bothered to give either written or oral evidence. Therefore, it does not come very well from the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) to complain now about inability to amend statutory instruments. As I gave both written and oral evidence to the Committee I have no need to wear a white sheet on that subject.

Mr. David Steel: What effect did the hon. Gentleman's representations have? It does not seem to me that they were very fruitful.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I was in a tiny minority of hon. Members who were so concerned. Those who now say that there should be a process to disentangle the order should search their consciences and consider whether they should have done something about it in the last Session, when they had the opportunity.
However, that in no way excuses the Government for introducing an order which combines a number of totally dissimilar elements and which is clearly introduced in that form solely to enable


them to say of those who vote against a tax on fuel that they have voted against a tax on lollipops. There is no other reason.
I say with great respect to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—I would say it with even greater respect if he were present—that it was fatuous of him to say that the matters were all jumbled together because the debate was due to begin at 7 o'clock tonight and last till 11.30. Unless he claims a degree of clairvoyance many weeks ago as to what the business of the House would be tonight, that clearly is not the reason.
The reason is a shoddy one. It is to enable the Government to try to score electoral points by misrepresenting the fact that people voting against the tax on fuel have no option but also to vote against the tax on lollipops. That does not do credit to the Government. If they were sincere in saying that they wanted by the imposition of taxation to make life more tolerable in our towns and countryside by reducing road congestion, they would not impose a tax which adversely affects people with much lower than the national average income, people in country districts who have to use a car or motor cycle to get to work because they have no other means of transport. What the Government would do in that case would be to put a tax on for example, towed caravans, which certainly cause congestion in towns and the countryside. No such tax has been imposed.
Do the Government realise the effect the tax will have not only on employment but on doctors, for instance? I have had written representations from doctors. Fuel consumption of 60 gallons a month is very modest for a doctor. That is what is consumed in a town practice, with some surrounding countryside, not a purely rural practice. The tax will mean an extra £36 a year for each doctor in the practice, totally unrecovered, because doctors are not registered for VAT.
The same goes for the hospital service. Patients in rural areas have to travel to and from out-patient appointments, and sometimes in-patient appointments as well. It applies to the whole realm of voluntary services which depend on cars. Very few, if any, are registered

for VAT. To regard the car as a luxury is to go back to the day of the red flag, a different sort of red flag, but an equally inappropriate one.
The Chief Secretary did not sign this miserable order. It is as well to put on record that it is signed:
Harold Wilson, Denis Healey, Two of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury
In other words, this measure stems from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, neither of whom thinks it worth while to show his nose in the House for one moment while this grossly harmful measure is, they hope, put through its affirmative procedure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has already pointed out that this measure will have an effect that even the Government probably do not intend in imposing value added tax on the whole realm of foodstuffs. Whether or not that is the case I have not my hon. Friend's vision to assert. If that is so, it is yet an additional reason for the Government to withdraw the order. If that is so, it will be interesting, when the matter goes to a Division, to learn how many hundreds of Labour hon. Members will troop into the Lobby to vote for it, quite unaware of what they are doing—namely, voting for value added tax right across the full spectrum of food. The previous Labour Government withdrew an ill-conceived order that set up, with many inappropriate details, the Agricultural Trading Board. Some of my hon. Friends will doubtless remember the occasion.
It is a little difficult to know who on the Government Front Bench is now in charge of this measure. It is clear that it is not either of the signatories. Neither is it the Chief Secretary, who introduced it. We do not know who will be winding up. Whoever it is, it would be interesting if he could intervene now to tell us whether he has discretion to withdraw the order if he is convinced by the arguments that have been put forward, or whether he has a steamroller instruction that whatever is said he is prohibited from withdrawing it, even though he must now realise that that is what he should do, because the Chief Secretary has vacated the Chamber and


the two Lords Commissioners who signed it have not even shown up.
This is another example of the abuse of the statutory instruments procedure, against which I have protested on many occasions. Indeed, I have introduced a Bill to enable statutory instruments to be amended. I hope that this example of abuse will stimulate a few more of my colleagues. This is a matter that can work both ways. I hope that both sides of the House will tackle with enthusiasm the question of introducing an effective and workable procedure for amending statutory instruments. I ask all hon. Members to join us in voting against this measure if the Minister in charge lacks either the authority or the good sense to withdraw it.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome this chance to talk about the effect of VAT on petrol, and particularly that effect in rural areas. I have no hesitation in extending the argument that has been so well put by my hon. Friends. There will be a considerable burden on rural areas which will have an effect on rural life as a whole. It will have a considerably greater effect on those living in rural areas than on those living in our towns and cities.
I believe that the countryside is being taken for a ride by the Government. We have only to think of what they have done to the rural areas since they have been in power. First, we must consider rates. I shall be out of order if I continue any longer on that theme, but there has been an important effect on agriculture. The countryside now has to cope, amongst other things, with the burden of the imposition of VAT on petrol. This will affect the rural areas considerably more than the towns and cities.
The increased oil costs alone were sufficient to put a considerable burden on the rural areas. But now the Government are making it even worse. The increase proposed is serious and unwelcome. The effect on the rural areas has been noted and will continue to be noted by those who live there. They realise the Government's aim. The Government just do not care for rural areas at all, and it is obvious why. They do not get many votes there.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) has left the Chamber. It is all very well for him to criticise the Government on behalf of the Liberals, of whom not one is present, but if not so many people had voted Liberal we should not have had the sort of damage which the Government are now inflicting on the rural areas.
It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that the Conservative and Labour Parties make sweeping statements in opposition and change their tune in government. I point out to him that the Liberals, too, make sweeping statements —indeed, even more sweeping statements than we do—knowing very well that they will never have to put them into operation. It is a pity that he should come here and criticise Government and Opposition in this way.
As my hon. Friends have stated, one of the main problems is that of rural workers, and the effect of these measures on them will be considerable. Petrol is used on an ever-increasing scale in the rural areas in order to get to work. There are few buses and, certainly in the South-West, except for main lines, there are no trains to get to work. These people therefore have to use their own cars. Their costs will now be considerably increased and it was already an expensive business for them to get to work with petrol as the old price.
The situation is galling to those of us who work so hard to get a number of industries established in the rural towns. They need people to come in from the villages to work in the factories. But it will be increasingly difficult to do this with the ever-increasing cost of petrol and the order will not help.
The situation is quite different for those who live in our towns and cities. They do not understand what it costs a chap living in a village to get to work. He has to pay the total cost of running his own car. I hope that the workers in the villages will note the action of the Government and the bias they have against rural folk.
Another problem is the effect on elderly people, of whom we have a large number in the South-West. It is difficult for them to get to town. They have to use their cars. They live on fixed incomes


and are finding it extremely difficult to cover their costs. Yet now they are being given an increased burden. The Government may say that they should stay where they are, but that is not fair.
Then there is the effect on village life as a whole. The cost of going anywhere will be even more expensive. We do not want the continual drift from the villages and the rural areas to the towns and cities. It is important to those who live in villages that village life should be maintained. But everything connected with village life will become much more expensive.
For example, one very essential service in village life is meals-on-wheels for elderly people. This will cost considerably more. The Government are always talking about their care for the elderly, but have they thought of the effect of this tax on the provision of meals on wheels for those living in villages?
The effect on rural garages must also be considered. These garages rely heavily on petrol sales from which they get a large part of their profits. Owners of quite a few of these garages have already told me that petrol sales have dropped considerably. These garages play an important part in rural life and must be enabled to remain in existence because they do all sorts of repairs, welding and other work which help to keep rural life going. I do not want the Government to underestimate the effect on rural garages.
There is also an effect on the holiday industry. Some people may say that this is a good thing and that it will reduce the number of cars, particularly perhaps in the South West. But I say to the Government and to those who feel that way that we in the South West rely heavily on the tourist industry, and because of the tax motoring will become even more expensive. Motorists pay enough tax and it seems that whatever Government are in power motorists are clobbered. The tax will have an unfortunate effect on the holiday industry.
I could talk about other things such as ice lollies, orange juice, pips and the rest. I feel strongly that the Government should seriously consider the effect of the order and the tax on rural life as a whole. Rural areas will not be

helped by the tax. The Government may not be interested, but I am. This is not the sort of tax which will help rural life to continue and which will make things pleasant and easier for people in rural areas.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Neil MacFarlane: I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friends. I shall deal with a sector of society which has been greatly affected by the Chancellor's Budget Statement earlier this year—the small retailer and the small businessman, who have been affected by the introduction of 10 per cent. value added tax on foodstuffs within a price category below lop.
After listening to the Chancellor's statement many retailers asked me, "What do we do. Do we charge 10 per cent. on goods labelled 10p?" I said that I would ring the Treasury and then let them know. I made inquiries and the Department concerned was clearly dismayed by my inquiry. An hour or so later I received a rather unsatisfactory reply from the Department and a few days later I received a document, issued by Customs and Excise. It was Press Notice No. 305 which, not by the wildest stretch of optimism, could be commended for its clarity.
The document stated that the smallest coin was ½p—that was very observant. The notice pointed out that traders would not be able to put up the price of each item by exactly 10 per cent. The notice stated that some items would go up by more, some by less and some not at all, but that the average charge, allowing for the pattern of sales, should be 10 per cent.
I submit that this is not the case. This is not what constituents have told me. The Government and the Treasury must have a rethink quickly and drastically and must enter into discussion with the National Chamber of Trade. It will not have escaped the attention of hon. Members that it is impossible to apply value added tax at a rate of 10 per cent. on items below 10p.
If an extra ½p is levied on items below 5p then VAT is being applied at a rate of anything between 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. The law has still not been clarified. This issue has not been correctly prepared. Small shopkeepers throughout the country are adversely


affected, particularly in their book-keeping on which they spend many hours a week. They have had extra work ever since the introduction of VAT last year. The repricing structure has proved complex.
Above all, their profit margins have been affected on a turnover of £100. The Treasury has not given a satisfactory answer on this. I hope that the Government will give urgent attention to the problem and will consult small retailing businesses. The Government have unleashed a problem upon this sector with which I hope the Minister will deal tonight. If he does not get into immediate contact with the National Chamber of Trade and Industry he will be underestimating the depth of feeling in the country.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: Tonight we are asked to approve an order which imposes value added tax on some items of food. I am bound to say that this sticks in my gullet, probably more so than with some of my hon. Friends because during the recent election it was charged in my constituency that this was the intention of the Tory Party. I spent much of my time denying that scurrilous rumour. And so I feel a sense of surprise and ridicule at seeing the Labour Party introducing this order.
A number of my hon. Friends have spoken about the effect of the petrol tax and suggested that it would have been desirable to have the order split into two parts so that there could have been two votes. I would not want it to be thought that the food side is any less important than the petrol side. The yield from food will, I understand, be £125 million which will come from the pockets of housewives, children and pensioners. All of this will add to the cost of living.
I noted the words of the Chief Secretary in moving the order. He suggested that this was a tax not on essential foods but only upon luxury foods. What world is it in which he lives? This is an attack on old-age pensioners and on those with large families. Those are the people who rely on this type of food. Anyone who has been into a home for senior citizens knows that almost invariably the sort of pudding served up consists of ice cream with a fruit salad. Those who go into

old-age pensioners' houses know that this is part of their staple diet. Ice cream is also a staple food of youngsters, certainly of mine and those of my constituents. It is not a luxury food. It is untrue to say that it is not a part of the everyday cost of living. The same is true of frozen yoghurt. Perhaps it was a luxury 10 years ago, but no one could call it that today.
This is particularly an attack on old-age pensioners because such people continually rely upon sweets and chocolates to give them energy. Many smoke, but many cannot afford to do so and suck chocolates or sweets. [Interruption.] If Labour Members scoff, they are out of touch with what happens. Anyone would think that a chocolate digestive biscuit had become a luxury. Increasingly, people are using potato powder to save on cooking expenses. This too is affected by the order.
Then there is the matter of petrol, to which several of my colleagues have referred. With the enormous increase in the cost of petrol that has been forced on the country by events in the Middle East, there could have been a case for reducing the tax on petrol. I would not support that case, although it has been suggested by several of my constituents. But there can be no case for deliberately increasing the tax on petrol, especially as the cost of petrol enters into so many other costs.
In my constituency there are many rural villages and doctors have to visit their patients by car. The extra tax means an added cost for them. The people who live in villages and go into towns to work will also have to face this extra cost.
Then there is the problem of small businesses. The small filling station is to be drawn into the net of VAT, with all the workload that goes with it. For these added reasons I view the order with considerable distaste.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Is my hon. Friend aware of the even more extreme case of taxi drivers, who are not registered for VAT and who are unable to claim back the additional petrol tax which they are now called upon to pay because they are limited by the restrictions of the Home Office, which controls taxi fares? That is an anomaly which appears to have been overlooked by the Government.

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that anomaly. I hope that the Financial Secretary will take the opportunity tonight to clarify the position and confirm that it is not as my hon. Friend suggests. If it is, that is another reason for not passing the order.
I am sorry that the opportunity has not been taken to iron out a difficulty which has appeared in the working of the system. Many small businesses find it almost impossible to do the detailed accountancy work that is required in the accurate filling up of quarterly returns. The Government should have taken this opportunity to allow small businesses to pay an estimated amount of VAT quarterly and the full amount, with any adjustments that might be necessary, at the end of the year when they have their auditors in. There are many small businesses out in the sticks whose accountancy system consists of three spike files. It is almost impossible for them to assemble the figures and practically impossible for them to get their auditors to come in quarterly because they are overloaded with work.
I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of allowing an estimated return to be made at a figure with the concurrence of the auditors, with a final return being made at the time of the annual audit. If that opportunity had been seized tonight, the order might have been more sensible. I regret that the order stems neither from sense nor from promises made by the Labour Party during the election campaign.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I strongly oppose the Government's decision to impose VAT on a range of foods—yes, foods!—which form an important and popular part of the British diet as enjoyed by most "ordinary families". To say that ice cream, frozen yoghurt and similar fresh and frozen products are not essential is not to live in a world of reality. It shows that the Government have no understanding of modern dietary practices followed by their constituents.
We also must consider the impost of VAT on chocolate biscuits. Do not the Government understand that these are extremely popular and a useful part of

the diet of ordinary families, for whom the Chief Secretary and his colleagues feel they have such a monopoly of concern?
What about potato crisps, which are to bear the full rate of VAT? Many of my constituents find potato crisps a helpful, useful and convenient part of their diet. They eat them with salads and with other nutritious foods, but they will go up in price by 10 per cent.
We then have that other important group of manufactured non-alcoholic beverages—in simple language, orange and lemon squash. I wish to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) and assure him that those products are extremely nutritious. They are made of natural fruit juices, water and sugar so they give benefit by providing vitamins and energy and are enjoyed by millions of ordinary families. Children drink lemon squash and orange squash with their daily meals. The cost of these products has considerably increased in the past few years, but yet another twist is being given to the inflationary spiral of foodstuffs. It is no use Labour Members shaking their heads because they are foods—energy-giving products. There are many children today who still do not enjoy a balanced diet because of lack of nutritional foods. It is these products—fruit juices, squashes and the like—which provide a valuable safeguard against nutritional deficiencies.
What is objectionable about the order is that it reintroduces a tax—VAT—on an important group of foodstuffs which, until now, have been exempt from VAT. It certainly shows a complete lack of understanding of the basic elements of the modern diet enjoyed by ordinary families.
I am opposed to the imposition of VAT on sweets. I was talking to a delightful young lady this evening—

Mr. William Hamilton: Name her!

Mr. Shersby: I met her, not outside No. 11 Downing Street, but in my own home. The young lady's name, I am happy to say, is Lucinda Shersby. She recommended me—and I accept her recommendation—to oppose the imposition of VAT on sweets which, she said, would be highly inflationary to the


Shersby family budget. As a parent, I can accept that solemn advice; and I assure the House that my daughter's recommendation was delivered as strongly as any advice given by any young lady outside No. 11 Downing Street.
I should like to say a few words about road fuel. I regard it as an absolute scandal—there is no other word for it—that the cost of road fuel is to be increased by 10 per cent. since this means that every road user will suffer. Many of my constituents who find it essential to use their cars to go to work, or visit relatives, or take children to school, or go shopping will face a substantial extra charge. I calculate that it will amount to an extra £20 per year for the average family with a small car. The charge will bear particularly heavily on nurses, teachers, local government officers—about whom we have been hearing so much recently—and many others.
But it will bear especially harshly on young families, because it is young families struggling to buy their homes on mortgages, to buy their first cars and to bring up their children who will find another £20 a year a very unwelcome

addition to their family budgets. I cannot help wondering how many young couples who voted Labour at the General Election will be wishing tonight that they had not done so as they calculate their family budgets.
Petrol is an essential item in the family budget. I believe that there is a case for reducing the tax on road fuel—certainly not for increasing it.
I suggest that it is no business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, whoever he may be, to tell my constituents that the effect of the increased tax on road fuel will be
… to reduce the pressure on our road system and to make life more tolerable in our towns and countryside."—[OFFiciAL REPORT, 26th March 1974; Vol. 871, c. 309.]
I could assure the right hon. Gentleman, were he present to hear me, that many of my constituents find his Budget and his proposals, with their highly inflationary effect on every family, to be far more intolerable than any pressure that they may suffer on the roads.
For all those reasons, I shall oppose the order in the Division Lobby.

10.22 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): It may assist the House if I rise at this stage to offer a view on the matter of construction referred to by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and subsequently by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I am aware that time draws on, and I hope to be brief, but it would be an act of gross discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman if I were not to make reference to his argument.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to say that I believe that the House is indebted to him and to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments for their scrutiny of this order, and the fact that I have to advise the House that in my view they have been led to a false conclusion in no way diminishes my admiration for their vigilance.
The effect of Section 38(2)(a) of the Interpretation Act on this order turns on two questions. The first, which is that discussed by the Select Committee and by the right hon. Member for Crosby, is whether the word "enactment" in subsection (2) includes an order.
Whether the word "enactment" in a particular statute includes subordinate legislation can be ascertained only from reading that statute taken as a whole. There may be indications in a particular statute that the word is used in a wider sense. But in the Interpretation Act the word occurs in only two other sections.
In section 11, there is a reference to an Act repealing an enactment. There, it seems clear that the word "enactment" is intended to refer to something contained in a statute.
In Section 35 it is provided:
… any enactment may be cited by reference to the section or subsection of the Act in which the enactment is contained".
There again, the word appears to refer to provisions contained in a statute.
Since the word is normally deemed to be used with the same meaning where-ever it occurs in the same statute, it would appear to have that meaning in Section 38. But, as the Committee points out, the question then arises whether the position is affected by the

formula used in Article 2(a) of the present order and Article 2 of the 1973 order:
… the Interpretation Act 1889 shall apply for the interpretation of this Order as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament".
I should point out that what is in question is whether the order revoked—the 1973 order—is to be treated for the purpose of the section as an Act of Parliament. The matter is carried no further by providing in the 1974 order that it—the present order—is to be so treated. The 1973 order provides in Article 2 that it is to be treated in that way
… for the interpretation of this Order".
But what is in question is not the interpretation of that order, but its revocation, and of course Article 2 is revoked by the present order together with the rest of the 1973 order.
Had it been sought in the present order to provide that the 1973 order should be treated on revocation as though it were a statute, there is a clear and well-used formula which would have been available to the draftsman. He could have stated in the 1974 order that
… the Interpretation Act 1889 shall apply for the interpretation of this Order as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament, and as if this Order and the Orders hereby revoked were acts of Parliament".
The right hon. Gentleman did not do so. It follows that the 1973 order is not an enactment within the meaning of Section 38 (2) of the Interpretation Act. That appears to be the correct way of approaching the question.

Mr. Graham Page: Surely the common sense reading of Article 2(a),
The Interpretation Act 1889 shall apply for the interpretation of this Order as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament",
means that we are dealing with both orders as if they were Acts of Parliament and the Interpretation Act therefore applies in that way.

The Solicitor-General: I have a feeling that the House may become a little impatient if this develops into a long dialogue between the right hon. Gentleman and myself.
The argument that I intended to deploy is that what is in question is whether those words in the 1973 order have the effect which the right hon. Gentleman contends. The whole point is that the words in the 1973 order are revoked.
In honesty I should tell the right hon. Gentleman and the House that it would be possible to argue that the revocation of an order should be construed by analogy to the repeal of an enactment. I will not attempt to spell out that argument in greater detail. Those who do so might find themselves in difficulties. But it would be a bold Law Officer who expressed confidence that the courts would never take that view. I have no doubt that would be the view that the right hon. Member for Crosby would seek to deploy. I feel bound to advise the House that had the matter rested there it would not be free from doubt. I dealt with the matter fairly fully out of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Committee.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I understand the argument, which may mean that there are two of us in the House in addition to the Solicitor-General who understand it. I do not think that we would want to press the technical point further.
However, is my hon. and learned Friend prepared to go on record, to help the Select Committee and the House in future, by agreeing that on another occasion when an order is laid with the intention of reinstating a position that was exempted in a previous order it would be more helpful to be explicit in the instrument and to state that which is to be read into the original enactment which a previous order had excluded? If this order had been explicit in that fashion this technical point about the Interpretation Act would not have arisen. If my hon. and learned Friend will go on record as saying that, it might be a guide to Departments in future and helpful to the House and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments when considering these orders.

The Solicitor-General: I am sure that those concerned will bear in mind what has been said by my hon. Friend. But draftsmen are frequently criticised for the length and prolixity of the orders that

they produce. If a draftsman goes out of his way to avoid using the long formula in an order because it is not necessary, I feel that the House would not want to criticise him.
If I may say so—perhaps this will answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) —there is a much shorter way of dealing with the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Crosby. I dealt with the specific point to which he directed attention out of courtesy to him and to the committee. But the second point, which somewhat curiously does not appear to have been discussed by the committee and was not mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, turns on other words in Section 38(2). The effect envisaged by the right hon. Gentleman is to obtain
unless the contrary intention appears".
For that purpose we are entitled to look at the explanatory note, and this makes it clear that the order is intended to impose VAT—

Mr. Graham Page: It is well recognised that the explanatory note is nothing to do with the order. It states that at the top of the explanatory note.

The Solicitor-General: I had always understood the position to be that where any ambiguity is contended, it is possible to look at the explanatory note although it is not part of the order.

Mr. Higgins: I do not think that the House will accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. In any case, if the idea is to look at the intention, one should surely look at the intention which was unanimously expressed on both sides of the House that changes of the size being made here should not be made by statutory instrument.

The Solicitor-General: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to comments made in debate, which are not available to be looked at.
I think that I can again shorten this part of the argument, because there is a clear indication of an intention to the contrary. Article 4 of the order sets out a substituted form of words for Group 2 of the Schedule, and the proposed Item 1(b) is
water comprised in the excepted items set out in Group 1.


That indicates a clear intention that there should be items in Group 1, and not that Group 1 should be deleted altogether, otherwise the words in Article 4 would be utterly meaningless.

Mr. Higgins: If that were so, would not Group 2 become Group 1?

The Solicitor-General: That would make even greater nonsense of the words in Group 2. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) ceases to mutter from a sedentary position, it might be possible to continue the dialogue.
The point I want to make is that the words as they appear in the revised Group 2 make it clear that there is an intention that there should be items set out in Group 1.

Mr. Higgins: There will be a Group 1. The Solicitor-General knows that if Group 1 is revoked, the second group becomes the first group in the order as it stands.

The Solicitor-General: That could not be the intention, because the words I have quoted are in the group to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.
This is a highly technical argument. I should be happy to continue to conduct the debate for as long as it is the wish of the House that I should do so, but I have set out what I consider to be the decisive argument in this matter. For those reasons, I advise the House that the draft order is effective for the purpose set out, and I do not think it would assist if I were to trespass further on the patience of the House to reiterate what I have already said.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Michael Fidler: I am glad that the Chief Secretary has returned to adorn the Government Front Bench. I was afraid that even an attenuated debate lasting three and a half or four hours might prove beyond his physical capacity.
Now that the hon. Gentleman has returned to the Chamber I want to refer to something that he said during the debate on children's shoes and clothing when he was on this side of the House.
I hope that, in his infinite wisdom, the Chief Secretary will withdraw the order

rather than put it to the test, as it will have to be, of being voted down, as I hope it will be, by the Opposition. I am sure that any right-thinking person who has had a chance to study the order will agree that a more muddled provision could not be devised. We have been entertained by the Solicitor-General elucidating the muddle in which we find ourselves, and I am sure that many hon. Members must be wondering what we shall do if, by mischance, the order is passed. If the order is passed, we shall have voted to put VAT on all foodstuffs, despite the explanation given by the Solicitor-General.
When challenged about the effect of the order on the cost of living, the Chief Secretary said that in respect of the lollipop group the effect would be 0·3 per cent. The hon. Gentleman was applying his figure of 0·3 per cent. to the whole range of the cost of living throughout the entire community. By chance, I have the census figures for 1971, which I think the hon. Gentleman will accept. They show that the number of marrieds in the community is 27 million, out of about 55 million, that the number of children under 4 years old is 4½ million, and that those between 5 and 14 years old total about 8½ million. That makes a total of 13 million children below the age of 14 who are the consumers of all these commodities that will have VAT applied to them if the order is passed.
The order is a typical example of inequality, since it seeks to collect tax not from the entire community, which is what income tax does, but from a very small section of the community which has the added burden of bringing up children—a burden which parents with older children or with no children do not have.
Thus we have a £125 million impost placed on those people who are most in need with their growing children. I remember the eloquent plea made by the Chief Secretary, when he sat on the Opposition benches, when the suggestion was made in this House that VAT should be applied to childrens shoes and clothing, and how eloquent he was in championing and expressing sympathy for the parents who have a burden—a lovable burden but nevertheless a financial burden—of bringing up their children, who are not wage earners and therefore cannot provide the money which the parents


have to find in order to buy these things for their children.
If that principle is correct—I accept it, and I am glad that children's clothing continues to be exempt—surely that same principle should be applied in this case. It must be wrong to put so large an impost on one section of the community only. It may be that the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), has views about the addition of VAT to sweets and other things. But I would remind him that it cannot be the desire of the Government to see consumption reduced, because they have produced statistics to show that the addition of VAT will bring in £125 million. If it were their belief that this would reduce the consumption of these articles, they would not have produced a figure of £125 million as the yield.
When I come to the other part of the order dealing with petrol tax, the position is even worse.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough tomorrow to read carefully the OFFICIAL REPORT? Whereas he has been arguing that the children's section is singled out, one of his hon. Friends has argued that the items referred to in this order are the staple diet of old-age pensioners, and another of his hon. Friends has been saying that each of these items is part of the necessary nutrition for a balanced diet for every member of the community.

Mr. Fidler: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to look at these figures which I have in my possession. I should be glad to lend them to him. I was present throughout the debate and I heard the points made by my hon. Friends. The total population over the age of 65 is 7 million. I have already referred to a much larger number of children than 7 million. So if we included old-age pensioners over 65 who are not capable of eating as much as children do, it would still be a substantial tax on parents of young children.
I move on to the question of petrol. I find that in the statistics the number of households with cars totals just over 8 million, out of a total of 18 million households. The petrol side of this matter means an impost on half the community. Only half the community

have cars. Obviously this tax will be paid by only half the community. It is sheer nonsense to say that the car is a luxury. Already it has been eloquently pleaded from this side of the House that the car is an essential form of transport, particularly outside the main urban centres. Even in the main urban centres there are hon. Members opposite—

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There are, of course, many rural areas which have been very badly affected by the revamping by the Secretary of State for the Environment of the domestic rate order. These are precisely the households which will be adversely affected by the additional impost of VAT on petrol.

Mr. Fidler: I endorse entirely my hon. Friend's intervention, but it is a little out of order in connection with this order.
By placing his impost we are taxing an essential thing which is used by half the households in the country. We are putting an even greater impost unfairly on those who live in the rural areas. Even within the urban centres the use of the car for travel to and from work or for the carriage of goods will inevitably add to the cost of living. The collection of this extra VAT from only half of the community is quite unfair.
I appeal to the Chief Secretary to look again at what he has placed before us. It is a muddled order, the legality of which is in doubt and the legal explanation of which has held the House entranced but not enlightened. It places a burden in so far as essential foods, which sweets, ice cream, yoghurts and so on are, on only a part of the community It puts the whole burden of petrol tax again on only half the community. I appeal to the Chief Secretary to take this order back in order, if he wishes, to make sure that we return to a situation far more equal, and not divisive, as this order must be. If he does not withdraw it I appeal to my hon. Friends and to fair minded hon. Members on the Government side of the House to vote against it.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: There have been two themes running through many of the contributions from Opposition Members. One is the effect on small


businesses, whether one is examining the question of VAT on petrol or on confectionery; the other is the question of VAT on food, as a principle. Both those themes go together in the question of VAT on confectionery, soft drinks, fruit juices, ice creams and so on—the category which is so easily and inaccurately described by Labour Members as the "lollipop sector". Labour Members conveniently ignore the fact that about half of the volume produced by the confectionery industry is in chocolate and chocolate confectionery.
But it is the smaller businesses to which we attach great importance. We find it extremely difficult to accept that in this year, at this time, when many smaller businesses are facing significant and, indeed, frantic increases in rate demands, when they are having to contend with the increased costs of administering businesses—telephones, postage and the use of electricity, or, if they employ people, by the proposed increases in employers' contributions—the small shopkeeper in particular is now to be faced with the added cost of administering, collecting and accounting for VAT on a proportion or, in some cases, the entire amount of his turnover.
I inquired this morning of the Retail Confectioners Association and was informed that one member of its council had calculated that the increase in his overheads alone amounted to £60 a week. In dealing with the sale of low-priced items—such as items of confectionery traditionally are—the recovery of such an amount towards his business is almost impossible.
I wish hon. Members to be under no misapprehension that when it comes to products of this industry we are dealing fundamentally in small unit prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) referred to the difficulty of achieving a 10 per cent. VAT on small unit prices. The position with small shops is that we have the products of an industry being distributed in about 250,000 or 300,000 outlets. There is practically not a shop on which an hon. Member can call which does not stock one item of this category of products, and most shops stock a wide range.
In this case, small shops are being asked to handle very small-priced units

and asked to recover a tax of 10 per cent. on those units. Furthermore, they are being asked by the Government, in view of the imposition of this tax with such rapidity, to recover this tax by a most haphazard method of pricing. They are being asked to impose a 25 per cent. or possibly a one-third or 40 per cent. increase in price on one article, with no price increase on another. Is that a contribution to the fair prices policy of Labour hon. Members? The consumer tries to find value for money in the products of this industry. The consumer's loyalty has been built up over many years because of the high standard of value. Is this a fair contribution to the consumer? It is not. It is a confusion born out of misapprehension.
That misapprehension is simply that the products of this industry can be pilloried by those in this House who wish to have an aura of sanctity. They are allocating some products to be known as inessential foods and setting at naught the fact that 95 per cent. of the population buy with great frequency the products of this industry. The point raised about which percentage of the population purchases should not be confused with the point about which percentage of the population happens to consume.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Is it not extraordinary that cheese, which, after all, is an "after" for many older people, should now be subsidised, whereas ice cream, which is also a basic food, particularly for many young people, should now have a tax imposed upon it?

Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that point. It is an addition to the list of peculiarities. The basic products of this industry come to a great extent from the third world—from the developing countries, the growers of nuts, fruit and cocoa beans. These are amongst the countries which right hon. and hon. Members opposite most desire to help. It is difficult to see how this measure will contribute to the development of the economies of those countries.
There is here a real confusion. For arbitrary reasons, a line has been drawn between essential foods because they happen to be foods which are eaten with a knife and fork and inessential foods because they happen to be conveniently


packaged, low-priced and bought in vast quantities by most households. This is a wrong way of distributing taxation in this day and age.
I remind the House that the products of the confectionery industry account for 6½ per cent. of the total expenditure on food and that they occupy fourth place in the food price index. The levying of value added tax on this sector will have a significant effect on the food price index at a time when the Government are using subsidies to try to reduce the price of certain foods. This is an unnecessary and undesirable imposition and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it tonight.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I listened, as I am sure the whole House did, with great—if not complete—fascination to the attempt of the Solicitor-General to refute the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) about what the order does. Hon. Members should recollect, when they go into the Lobbies tonight, that it is at least arguable that if we approve the order we shall approve the taxing of all forms of food.
That argument should never have arisen. It arises only because of the form in which the Government have sought to increase taxation. Two totally different taxes are brought together. The House must vote for both or for none. There is a difference of opinion about the propriety of imposing these two taxes one with the other. The debate is a short one, held late at night. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and other hon. Members have said, this is no way in which to seek the approval of the House to £275 million worth of extra taxation.
We all realise how views change with the taking of office. However, some changes are more abrupt than others. The Leader of the House once said that a sensible Government who wanted to restrain price rises would reduce the tax on petrol. The tax increases effected by the order are not sensible. They do not make political, economic or social sense. They certainly have nothing to do with common sense. The order even restores the anomaly which the Chief Secretary criticised in such scathing terms in 1972

by taxing potato crisps alone among the products of the potato.
At least the Chancellor did not pretend in his Budget debate speech that the tax was being imposed for the benefit of children's teeth. I agreed with a great deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) but it cannot be honestly argued, as he appeared to argue at one point, that the tax will reduce the amount of tooth decay resulting from eating sweets. No one could seriously put that before the House and expect to be believed. I may remind the Labour Members that it was one of their Governments that used to tax toothpaste at the luxury rate, and that it was a Conservative Government which twice reduced that tax.
In introducing his Budget Statement the Chancellor regarded the increase in VAT as balancing the zero rating of other items. The Chief Secretary took a somewhat broader view and saw the increase in VAT as balancing the subsidies on food generally. I make the total of subsidies so far about £220 million in a full year, as against a full-year yield of VAT on food and drink of £125 million. Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who said that this was a charge on families were right. It is a charge on families, pensioners and all ordinary people. The Government Front Bench has a curious view of the life of ordinary families and what those families regard as necessary or unnecessary expenditure.
There has been an increase in general tax on drink of £100 million for beer. There is an extra £5 million in VAT in addition to that. There is also an additional £200 million on tobacco plus £10 million in VAT. That makes a total of over £300 million. Add to that the extra £125 million on food and drink under the proposal before us and we see an extra £425 million on items that every family in Britain regards as ordinary necessary expenditure in a modern country with a reasonable standard of living. It is sheer hypocrisy for the Government to suggest that they are taxing items which are less essential to ordinary people.
What does it mean anyway? It means a penny off a pint of milk and 2p a bottle on Ribena. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) for his even more telling point about orange juice. The 14 oz.


loaf is subsidised, but not the 8 oz., 9 oz. or 10 oz. loaf, which the pensioner and those who have the misfortune to live alone buy much more frequently. There are more anomalies in this complex of legislation and proposals than in any other. I am glad that, unlike many shopkeepers, I shall not have to explain to pensioners why their little loaf is not subsidised, unlike the large family loaf.
I now turn to the effect of the order on shopkeepers and small businesses especially. Those who happen to have a turnover of less than £5,000 a year will be the hardest hit. They will have no input and there will be no possibility of any of the value added tax that they pay being offset. The same applies to the professional man whose fees do not amount to £5,000, unless he volunteers to register. That is a complicated and expensive matter as my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) said. A good deal of administration is involved.
I took the trouble to talk to three village shopkeepers, putting them together as a composite figure. Their turnover was about £20,000 a year. Their overheads were about 10 per cent. of that turnover. Value added tax administration already accounts for 5 per cent. of their total overheads and the Government now propose to add more. Such shopkeepers are dealing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) said, in small items and small unit prices. That makes the administration problem more complex and more difficult.
These matters have had their effect on manufacturing industry, and especially on the confectionery trade, which has not found it possible to make any price adjustments. Over a period it is possible to make an adjustment in the size of a block of chocolate, for example, but that means the expensive re-equipping of moulds, which are items of precise accuracy. That means a further charge on industry.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) I am against taxing food. Now that my hon. Friends who attend the European Parliament have at last persuaded that Parliament to be against taxing food, or at least to be willing to accept the concept of zerorating food, the Government are weakening

their hand, to say the least, by giving in and taxing some food.
The order will have the effect of imposing VAT on a sorry collection of items of food and drink, namely, ice creams, iced lollies, yoghurt—which I was always led to believe was very good for one—non-alcoholic beverages, bottled waters, potato crisps, roasted nuts, and so on.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he thought that part of the object of VAT on petrol was to reduce the pressure on our road system. However, it is clear from what he said that he did not intend any part of the VAT on petrol and diesel oil to impinge upon industry. Presumably he meant that there should be less private motoring. He could have meant nothing else in that context. However, the Chief Secretary thought that the result would be many miles of happy motoring.
The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) was critical. Perhaps I can entice him into our Lobby by reminding him that it was a Labour Government that increased petrol duty by 1s. 9d. in the old currency and 9p in the new. Over half of the 27½p that is represented by tax on a gallon of four-star petrol has been imposed by Labour Governments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) has said, no reduction in the volume of industry's use of fuel or its use of roads is intended or will happen, because they will get the VAT back in full.
So the whole burden of saving is to go on to the private motorist. I give one example. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) referred to taxis. As I understand it, VAT is recoverable on taxi fares when the drivers operate as employees of a company, but not by owner-drivers. There is a minute saving in petrol, anyway, but the whole burden falls on the private motorist. Industry will simply suffer from higher administrative costs. The small shopkeeper will suffer especially.
Take the case of the composite village grocer I quoted. The Inland Revenue has agreed that 90 per cent. of the use of his car is chargeable to his business, because he uses it to deliver, but Customs and Excise will not assess petrol for VAT on a mileage basis. Yet it is easy to check on the milometer and to assess the average consumption of that type of car. But, no. He has to complete an


invoice separately for every item he is going to claim for tax purposes. It will add greatly to the £60 a year he spends on VAT administration.
The Chancellor has done this without consultation with industry. The same problems will affect travellers and salesmen and designers in the textile trade, for example, who move from home to factory, then to another factory and home again. How are they to allocate their charges of VAT? Even the tax consultant sometimes has to move from client to client, especially in the country districts. He may be visiting farmers or even trying to help my village grocer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Mills) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles spoke of the difficulties of those travelling to and from work, especially in the countryside. They also pointed out how the tax impinges on those doing social work, on which so much depends in the countryside. Because this is an order, we cannot even move an amendment to try to exempt doctors, for example, or those who run the meals-on-wheels service, or those who use their cars to take patients to hospital. What about all the voluntary efforts on which, despite the Welfare State, we depend so much?
Again, what about those who use their cars at weekends? Do the Government think they are all rich men, with elegant, highly-furnished and decorated cottages in the country? What about those who use their cars to get to their caravans or chalets in the Isle of Sheppey? A great number of working men go out by car at the weekend. It is all right if one goes to Herne Bay, where there are good bus and train services, but the Isle of Sheppey is different. What about those who use their cars to escape on a Sunday from the industrial Midlands and North into the countryside. Hon and right hon. Gentlemen opposite make great play about people having free access to the countryside after working in towns. Yet now they seek to tax these people further for doing just that.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: As all of the arguments the right hon. Member is advancing relate to the principle of VAT, do I now take it that the Opposition are opposed to VAT?

Mr. Macmillan: I am talking about raising the level of tax at the moment— a moment when the Prime Minister, just before the election, was suggesting that motorists should be subsidised because of the high cost of petrol and oil. This order raises the tax rate at a moment when those who can least afford it will have to pay most. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles suggested that there might be some form of offsetting benefit.
Consider motor vehicle duty. That raises £540 million at £25 a car. That is a heavy charge on those who use their cars only at weekends. The Minister has a lot of questions to answer. The Government have not justified bringing forward this composite order dealing with such large sums. The Minister has to justify, against the valid criticisms of my hon. Friends, the merits of the increased taxation. Has he made any estimate of the effect, if any, of this extra impost on company liquidity? As far as I can estimate, the payment of VAT by companies this year is: April, about £320 million; May, about £100 million; June, £150 million, July, £320 million to £350 million. It will go on month by month in a progression of, roughly, £100 million, £150 million, £350 million, the difference being in the impact on manufacturers and retailers. It is in July, when the impact of VAT is heavy, that corporation tax—£300 million worth of it—comes to be paid. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether company liquidity ranks among those things that he has neglected to consider. I hope that we can have a slightly less legalistic and more politically justifiable explanation of the order than has so far been presented to us.

11.8 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dr. John Gilbert): I do not know whether, in the 20 minutes left to me, I shall be able to deal with all the points raised. I shall attempt to do so and to clear up some of the muddle which clearly exists in the mind of the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) about some of the basic elements of VAT. He might do better to take some instructions from his hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who does know a little about it, although even he is apparently reduced


these days to taking his economic instruction from Mr. Bernard Levin of The Times—which might account for various things he has said today.
The hon. Member raised three principal matters about the tax. He talked about the amount of tax we were seeking to deal with by the order. He questioned the inclusion of two disparate subjects in one order, and in this he was echoed by his hon. Friends. He also taxed us about dealing with these matters by order at all. I propose to deal with those questions one by one.
The hon. Gentleman read out a horrifying list of the amounts involved in the Budgets of the early 1960s and compared them with the amounts involved in the order. He failed to tell the House that there has been such a change in the value of money—a change that accelerated under the administration of which he was a member—that many of these comparisons are totally irrelevant. Another phenomenon has manifested itself in the last couple of years. Under the administration of which he was a member the size of the monetary and fiscal aggregates has expanded to such an extent that we are dealing with numbers that are of totally unprecedented proportions. When we think of an economy that has a net borrowing requirement of £4,250 million in one year and that had a balance of payments deficit long before the problems of the Middle East hit us of about £2,000 million a year, he has very little of which to complain.
The hon. Member for Worthing was joined by the hon. Members for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) in complaining vigorously about the taking of these two matters together. I assure the hon. Gentlemen that their comments have been noted and will be borne in mind.
As to the question of dealing with these matters by the order, the hon. Member for Worthing pointed out, quite rightly, that in 1972 we divided the House to deny the then Chancellor the power to abolish zero rating by order. But what the hon. Member for Worthing failed to say was that his right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) brought that Division upon himself by repeatedly refusing across the Floor of the

House to give assurances that his administration would not impose VAT on essential foodstuffs in the context of the harmonisation requirements that we saw coming in the European Community. That is what we were voting about on that occasion, and all hon. Members who were present in the House at that time well knew it.

Mr. Higgins: If the Financial Secretary will read HANSARD he will see that that is not the case. My right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) made absolutely clear that he would use the power only to make minor amendments and not to make changes of this order.

Dr. Gilbert: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the context in which that Division took place. I repeat, it was as a result of his right hon. Friend's repeated refusal to give a categorical assurance that he would not remove zero rating on a whole range of foodstuffs, as is the pattern in all the countries of the European Community, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
I will deal with some of the more useful contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane) complained of a lack of clarity in certain Customs and Excise documents. I assure him that I will have that matter looked at. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to send me written representations on the matter I shall gladly consider them.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) asked whether it might be possible for small traders to make a return estimating their VAT liability on a quarterly basis. I shall be happy to look into that possibility, without giving any commitment.
Before I turn to the details of the order, I should deal briefly with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) and echoed by the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry). I regret to have to say to my hon. Friend that I do not think he was paying the closest attention to my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, who dealt thoroughly with the question whether or not we were setting a precedent by adding VAT to items that were already bearing Excise duty. This state of affairs


was contemplated in the Finance Act of 1972, and the previous Government, quite rightly, in our view, as my hon. Friend said, applied such value added tax to alcoholic drinks and tobacco.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Watford is not satisfied, on philosophical grounds, that that is the right way to approach the matter—

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I am not.

Dr. Gilbert: —he is right to say that it is imposing a tax on a tax—all I can say is that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had to make a decision as to the total contribution to tax resources which any one commodity should provide, and, if he did not do it in this way, he would have had to increase the tax in some other way, and, quite frankly, the result would have been the same. In fact, this way is administratively far more simple.
I turn now to the problems of taxi drivers. I am aware of the difficulties which the taxi trade is encountering not only in London but elsewhere. I realise also that taxis form a part of public transport, especially outside central London. I have received a deputation of taxi drivers to consider this whole problem with them, and I have had representations from several other quarters. At this stage, all I can say in this connection is that I am considering the representations, and I cannot take the matter further now.

Mr. Burden: Infamous.

Dr. Gilbert: The right hon. Member for Farnham asked some questions about taxi employees and owner-drivers. He wanted to know whether taxi driver employees paid value added tax and owner-drivers did not. I think I have his question the right way round.

Mr. Macmillan: I asked whether companies, as such, could set their inputs against the value added tax which they were charged, and taxi drivers individually could not.

Dr. Gilbert: The right hon. Gentleman is merely adding to his own confusion. The situation is perfectly clear. Either an owner-driver is registered because his turnover is more than £5,000 a year, or, if he has less than £5,000 a year, he may

choose voluntarily to register; and in either of those circumstances he may deduct his inputs. If he chooses—it is entirely open to him—not to register though he has a turnover of less than £5,000 a year, he is exempt and he cannot deduct his inputs.
For the taxi driver who is an employee, the position is that the owner would in most cases have a turnover of more than £5,000 a year and therefore be able to deduct the inputs, but no impact whatever would fall on the employee.

Mr. Burden: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that many taxi drivers in rural areas have turnover of less than £5,000, or even less than £4,000 a year? Why, then, should they not be able to recover the VAT impost which is put upon them?

Dr. Gilbert: I trust that the hon. Gentleman addressed that question to his right hon. and hon. Friends when they introduced the value added tax on taxis. This Government are at least prepared to discuss the matter with the taxi drivers, which is more than his right hon. and hon. Friends were prepared to do. We are doing precisely that.
The right hon. Member for Farnham again asked about the impact of this increase in VAT on company liquidity. He will recall that it was one of the great theme songs of his hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, who understands the tax, that with the exception of the small minority of companies which were net reclaimers of tax, the imposition of tax added to companies' liquidity. Therefore, an increase in it will add to it even further.
Getting away from these smaller questions, I turn to the problems of rural transport. Here, we recognise the force of feeling among Opposition Members, and the Government are not unaware or unsympathetic to the problems of those living in rural areas where public transport systems are in an unfortunately high state of decay.
I pay tribute to the very forceful speech of the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) and to the thoughtful one of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. I agree with a great deal of what they said about the difficulties facing people living in rural areas. Some of the


suggestions of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles were very thoughtful ones, but he will recognise that the problem is a very complex one to which neither side of the House has proposed a satisfactory solution.
There is a chicken-and-egg situation here, and one can have two views about it. A car has become a necessity with the withering away of public transport systems. But it is also true that the arrival of the car in rural areas has contributed to the withering away of the public transport systems. The effect has been that the better-off members of the community who used to use public transport do not use it regularly and now use their cars. Revenues, profits and receipts have fallen, and therefore there is less public transport available for the less well-off members of the community. This is a matter with which we are all familiar.
It is the Government's view that the real way to deal with the matter is to assist in the flexible development of those rural transport services. We cannot, unfortunately, zero rate or exempt people living in rural areas from the impact of VAT on petrol. We cannot, for example, give them unlimited free petrol, because then they could be said to be having free joy rides in addition to their essential motoring at the expense of the general body of taxpayers. If we do not give them unlimited free petrol, we have to introduce some sort of rationing system, and then there will be questions arising such as the criteria upon which rations should be allocated, whether it should be done on the basis of the distance that a person lives from a main centre, whether petrol should be given only to cover essential journeys, who would police such a system, and so on. What about those for whom public transport is available, although it runs only at inconvenient times? Should they be given a ration of subsidised petrol? All such questions confirm the complexity of the problems facing anyone trying to provide some sort of relief in this way for people suffering from debilitated public transport systems in rural areas.

Mr. David Steel: Surely none of these complexities applies to the suggestion that the vehicle excise tax itself could be varied regionally.

Dr. Gilbert: There are enormous problems attached to regional variation. I recognise that it is a suggestion made in good faith by the hon. Gentleman, but there are enormous problems about where a car is kept. It would lead to a great many people claiming to register their cars in areas which qualified for preferential duty when they kept them in quite different areas. Such a system would be extremely difficult to police.
I turn to the other main theme of the debate—the desirability of various foodstuffs not being retaxed by the order.
The tenderness of various Opposition spokesmen towards the British diet and the predeliction for confectionery, ice cream and soft drinks has been extremely touching, and right hon. and hon. Members opposite are not alone in the views that they hold. I have heard it said that chocolate biscuits are a highly nutritious low-priced foodstuff. I have heard it said that confectionery forms about 2¼ per cent. of the average United Kingdom diet, but in nutritional terms is primarily an energy food contributing on average nearly 4½ per cent. of the daily intake of calories. I have heard it said that potato crisps are a source of protein, and are therefore of considerable value.
I should merely point out to hon. Members that the first quotation came from the Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance, the second from the Cake and Biscuit Alliance, and the third from the Imperial Tobacco Group Ltd.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that those statements are in some way fallacious?

Dr. Gilbert: I suggest forcefully to the lion. Gentleman that their value should be borne in mind in the context of what I am now about to quote to him which will be a little less to his taste.
Sticky sweets and soft drinks are the main cause of tooth decay.
It is interesting that hon. Gentlemen opposite should find this funny.
The decision that confectionery and soft drinks should be zero-rated with the introduction of value added tax has dismayed the dental profession.
The right hon. Member for Farnham stood at the Dispatch Box a few minutes ago and said that no one in his right mind would believe that making soft drinks, ice cream and sweets cheaper


would affect dental health. That quotation came from the British Dental Association. I will give him another to put in his pipe and smoke. These are quotations from the time that these foodstuffs were zero-rated in last year's Budget.

Mr. Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Gilbert: No.

Mr. Shaw: rose—

Dr. Gilbert: I am not giving way.

Mr. Shaw: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Dr. Gilbert: No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
The Budgetary encouragement of the consumption of confectionery, sweet food and soft drinks was not a deliberate attack on the dental health of the public. Yet this is the effect.
That was said at the time of last year's Budget by the British Dental Health Foundation. So much for the argument by the right hon. Member for Farnham.

Mr. Shaw: rose—

Dr. Gilbert: I have given way once. The hon. Gentleman has had his go.

Mr. Fidler: May I ask whether your calculations are based on reduced consumption or on payment of the tax at a continuing level?

Dr. Gilbert: I do not think that Mr. Deputy Speaker has made any calculations. [Interruption.] Right hon. and hon.

Gentlemen should listen. I said that I did not think that Mr. Deputy Speaker had made any calculations. I suggest that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen should listen more carefully.

It is clear that the imposition of a tax of this kind should, and I hope will, cause a reduction in the consumption of these items. Presumably that is why right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are squealing so much about it. If it did not have that effect it would not have brought so much noise from them.

At its conception value added tax was presented to the House and to the country as a comprehensive tax. By the time we had got from conception to parturition it had ceased to be a comprehensive tax and had become a broadly based tax which is a different thing indeed. All mention of freedom from anomalies had disappeared. It is a fact that no tax that is not comprehensive can be free from anomalies. As my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary pointed out in his opening speech, there is only one way to get a tax that is free from anomalies and that is to tax everything. In our view that is not the way to do it. It was the late Sir Gerald Nabarro's way and it is the Common Market way. To their credit, it was not the way of the previous Government. In this respect we endorse the approach that they took—

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business)

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 269.

Division No. 16.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bradley, Tom
Cronin, John


Allaun, Frank
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Archer, Peter (Warley, West)
Brown, Bob(Newcastle upon Tyne,W.)
Cryer, G. R.


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Cunningham, G.(Islington,S&amp;F'sb'ry)


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Ronald (H'kney,S.&amp; Sh'ditch)
Cunningham, Dr. John A. (Whiteh'v'n)


Ashton, Joe
Buchan, Norman
Dalyell, Tam


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton &amp; Pr'wich)
Davidson, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman
Campbell, Ian
Davies, Bryan (Enfield, N.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Barnett, Joel (Heywood &amp; Royton)
Carter, Ray
Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)


Bates, Alf
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Deakins, Eric


Baxter, William
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Clemitson, Ivor
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)
Cocks, Michael
Delargy, Hugh


Bidwell, Sydney
Cohen, Stanley
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Bishop, E. S.
Coleman, Donald
Doig, Peter


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.
Dormand, J. D.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Concannon, J. D.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Booth, Albert
Conlan, Bernard
Duffy, A. E. P.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)
Dunn, James A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)
Dunnett, Jack


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Crawshaw, Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth




Eadie, Alex
Lamond, James
Richardson, Miss Jo


Edelman, Maurice
Latham, Arthur (CityofW'minsteP'ton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edge, Geoff
Lawson, George (Motherwell&amp;Wishaw)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Edwards, Robert (W'hampton, S.E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Roderick, Caenwyn E.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scunthorpe)
Lee, John
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rodgers, William (Teesside,St'[...])


English, Michael
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Rooker, J. W.


Ennals, David
Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N.)
Roper, John


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul B.


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Evans, John (Newton)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowlands, Edward


Ewing, Harry (St'ling,F'kirk&amp;G'm'th)
Loughlin, Charles
Sandelson, Neville


Faulds, Andrew
Loyden, Eddie
Sedgemore, Bryan


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Selby, Harry


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, W.)
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Mabon, Dr. J.Dickson
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Flannery, Martin
McCartney, Hugh
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter(S'pney&amp;P'plar)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hamp'n,N.E.)


Foot, Michael, Rt. Hn.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham,D'ford)


Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (S'hwark,Dulwich)


Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor
Sillars, James


Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)
MacLennan, Robert
Silverman, Julius


Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Skinner, Dennis


Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, Kevin
Small, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Madden, M. 0. F.
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Garrett, John (Norwich,S.)
Magee, Bryan
Snape, Peter


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mahon, Simon
Spriggs, Leslie


George, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stallard, A. W.


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marks, Kenneth
Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth,Fulh'm)


Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Graham, Ted
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Stott, Roger


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mayhew, Christopher(G'wh,W'wch,E)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Grant, John (Islington, C.)
Meacher, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Griffiths, Eddie (Sheffield, Brightside)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Swain, Thomas


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mikardo, Ian
Taverne, Dick


Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hamling, William
Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)
Thorne, Stan (Preston, S.)


Hardy, Peter
 Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, lichen)
Tierney, Sydney


Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William
Tinn, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moonman, Eric
Tomlinson, John


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tomney, Frank


Hatton, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Torney, Tom


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Tuck, Raphael


Hooley, Frank
Moyle, Roland
Urwin, T. W.


Horam, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.


Howell, Denis (B'ham, Small Heath)
Murray, Ronald King
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Huckfleld, Leslie
Newens, Stanley (Harlow)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, Ladywood)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Ctedwyn (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ogden, Eric
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
O'Halloran, Michael
Watkins, David


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian
Weitzman, David


Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice
Wellbeloved, James


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (L'p'l,EdgeHill)
Orme, Stanley
White, James


Irving, Rt. Hn. Sydney (Dartford)
Ovenden, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Jackson, Colin
Owen, Dr. David
Whitlock, William


Janner, Greville
Padley, Walter
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Jenkins, Hugh (W'worth, Putney)
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


John, Brynmor
Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hvrng, Hchurch)


Johnson, James (K'ston uponHull,W.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, Rt. Hn. Shirley(H'f'd&amp;St'ge)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Parry, Robert
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pavitt, Laurle
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Perry, Ernest G.
Wise, Mrs. Audrey


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Phipps, Dr. Colin
Woodall, Alec


Judd, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Woof, Robert


Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Kelley, Richard
Price, Christopher (Lewisham, W.)
Young, David (Bolton, E.)


Kerr, Russell
Price, William (Rugby)



Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Radice, Giles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Lambie, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Mr. John Golding.


Lamborn, Harry






NOES


Adley, Robert
Banks, Robert
Body, Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Beith, A. J.
Boscawen, Hon. Robert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)
Boyson, Dr. Rhodes (Brent, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Benyon, W.
Braine, Sir Bernard


Ancram, M.
Berry, Hon. Anthony
Bray, Ronald


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Biffen, John
Brittan, Leon


Atkins, Rt. Hn. Humphrey (Spelthorne)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brocklebank-Fowler,Christopher


Awdry, Daniel
Blaker, Peter
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Bainiel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.)
Bryan,Sir Paul







Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Howe, Rt.Hn. Sir Geoffrey(Surrey,E.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Budgen, Nick
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Balmer, Esmond
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Burden, F. A.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Raison, Timothy


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hunt, John
Rathbone, Tim


Carlisle, Mark
Hurd, Douglas
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Redmond, Robert


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Channon, Paul
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Churchill, W. S.
Jessel, Toby
Reid, George


Clark, A. K. M. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Renton, Rt. Hn. SirDavid(H't'gd'ns're)


Clark, William (Croydon, S.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Renton, R. T. (Mid-Sussex)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cockcroft, John
Jopling, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Cooke, Robert (Bristol, W.)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rifkind, Malcolm


Cope, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Cordle, John
Kellett Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.-W.)


Cormack, Patrick
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Corrie, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Costain, A. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Critchley, Julian
Kirk, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crouch, David
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sainsbury, Tim


Crowder, F. P.
Knox, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Lamont, Norman
Scott-Hopkins, James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Lane, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Dixon, Piers
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shelton, William (L'mb'th,Streath'm)


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lawson, Nigel (Blaby)
Silvesler, Fred


Drayson, Burnaby
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sims, Roger


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lester, John (Beeston)
Sinclair, Sir George


Durant, Tony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rtland &amp; Stmford)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Loveridge, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'm'ngton)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Luce, Richard
Spence, John


Elliott, Sir Robert
MacArthur, Ian
Spicer, Jim (Dorset, W.)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray&amp;Nairn)
MacCormack, Iain
Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, R. A.
Sproat, Iain


Fairgrieve, Russell
McCusker, H.
Stainton, Keith


Farr, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fell, Anthony
MacGregor, John
Stanley, John


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McLaren, Martin
Steel, David


Fidler, Michael
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. M. (Farnham)
Steen, Anthony (L'pool, Wavertree)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marten, Neil
Stokes, John


Fowler, Norman (Sutton Coldfield)
Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fox, Marcus
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Freud, Clement
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tebbit, Norman


Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Mayhew, Patrick(RoyalT'bridgeWells)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Gardiner, George (Reigate&amp;Banstead)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Miller, Hal (B'grove &amp; R'ditch)
Thomas, D. E. (Merioneth)


Gibson-Watt, Rt. Hon. David
Mills, Peter
Townsend, C. D.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Tugendhat, Christopher


Godber, Rt. Hn. Joseph
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tyler, Paul


Goodhew, Victor
Moate, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Goodlad, A.
Money, Ernle
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Monro, Hector
Viggers, Peter


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)
Waddington, David


Gray, Hamish
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Grieve, Percy
Morgan, Geraint
Wakeham, John


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morris, Michael (Northampton, S.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wall, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Peter (City of Chester)
Walters, Dennis


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Alrey
Warren, Kenneth


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neubert, Michael
Watt, Hamish


Hampson, Dr. Keith
Newton, Tony (Braintree)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hannam, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wells, John


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Normanton, Tom
Wiggin, Jerry


Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)


Havers, Sir Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Winstanley, Dr. Michael


Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Winterton, Nicholas


Henderson, Douglas (Ab'rd'nsh're,E)
Osborn, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Henderson, Barry(Dunbartonshire,E.)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Worsley, Sir Marcus


Higgins, Terence
Pardoe, John
Young, Sir George (Ealing, Acton)


Hill, James A.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)



Holland, Philip
Pattie, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hooson, Emlyn
Percival, Ian
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Paul Hawkins.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resoved

That the Value Added Tax (General) (No. 1) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 542), a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Harper.]

A590 (LEVENS BRIDGE—ULVERSTON)

11.45 p.m.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: The A590 road is the economic lifeline of manufacturing industry in the Furness peninsula and of farming and the tourist industry in North Lonsdale and much of south and west Lakeland. If regional development and regional help are to mean anything to these areas, they must include major and early improvements to this road. The previous Government were firmly committed to this improvement. I welcome the opportunity that this short debate gives for the Under-Secretary to acknowledge, in his turn, the commitment and to give a progress report on behalf of the new Government.
There can be few similar lengths of road in the country where there are so many improvement schemes on the drawing board as the stretch from Levens Bridge to Ulverston. This is a direct reflection of the recognition by past Governments of both parties of the inadequacy of the present road.
To my knowledge there are in the course of preparation or awaiting the commencement of work eight separate projects. I am delighted to see that the Minister has with him a map of this road on a generous scale. I suspect that he, like many people from Scotland, has travelled on this road when taking rest and recreation. Nevertheless, the map will make my remarks more intelligible to him. To help the Minister I shall refer to these projects by starting at Levens Bridge and following the road to Ulverston—that is, moving from the central spine of the A6 out towards Barrow-in-Furness. I drive along this road several times each week, living, as I do, at Haver-

thwaite; so if I speak with feeling the Minister will understand why.
The improvements which I understand are on the drawing board or well advanced are these. First, there is the general improvement of the alignment of the road from Sampool to Meathop. There is there a particular hazard and obstacle at the Gilpin Bridge. There is the Lindale diversion, of which I shall say more later. There is the High Newton diversion, improvements at Newby Bridge, the Haverthwaite diversion, the Greenodd diversion, the widening at Arrad Foot, and the Ulverston Stage III diversion. In addition, I very much welcome the start recently authorised of the dualling of a length of the A590 south of Greenodd. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a brief progress report on each of these improvements.
I realise that at a time of national economic stringency it would be unreasonable to ask for a precise timetable embracing all these projects. What I do ask is that administrative delays in planning and statutory procedures should be eliminated and design work should proceed with the maximum speed so that when the economic situation is more favourable to public expenditure or, indeed, demands more public expenditure, as we all have experience of it doing from time to time, any of these projects still unstarted can be put in hand without delay.
I emphasise the need for giving the very highest priority in the road programme to three of these projects. This is because these three are the stretches of road where at present there is a real risk to the lives of members of the local community as well as to the lives of road users.
The first project that I want to talk about in a little more detail is the Lindale diversion. The Minister will have on his files a petition from the women's institute in this village. That petition makes clear the fear that the institute has because of heavy lorries grinding up the extremely steep gradient there, with the risk of missing gears and resultant accidents or running away coming downhill and the frustration at the delay there has been in making a start on this project.
I am aware that a public inquiry is to start next week into objections to the Department's proposals. I realise that the Under-Secretary cannot and would not wish to prejudice in any way this statutory process, or even appear to do so, but I ask him to ask the inspector to report as quickly as possible and to urge the Minister to give his decision with the utmost speed. There are real grounds for making that request. When the Under-Secretary examines the history of this stretch of road he will recognise that they are fair grounds that I am putting forward.
The Lindale diversion was first designed as part of the proposed link road across the Kent Estuary and this was included in the preparation pool as long ago as February 1967. A public inquiry was held at the end of 1970. It required a controversial and technically difficult decision on the part of the Minister, and we had to wait almost two years for it. That was an inquiry into the major multimillion pound proposal for the link road across the Kent Estuary, but the Lindale diversion was designed as an integral part of it to link with it.
When the proposal for a link road was rejected, the result was that the design of the Lindale diversion had to be amended and the statutory processes reopened. It would be abominably unfair if my constituents had now to wait again for any appreciable length of time for a decision on this further consequential and, by many local people, unexpected further inquiry.
Next, I regard Newby Bridge as a highly dangerous stretch of road. The Under-Secretary's divisional road engineer will probably agree with that assessment. At the approaches to a bad bend, buses stop on opposite sides of the road, at a point where there is no speed restriction so that passengers, including many schoolchildren, can change from one bus to another and cross from one side of the road to the other. If any proposal for such a siting of bus halts were to be brought forward now, it would be rejected out of hand by the Department. The sooner something is done here the better for bus passengers and other road users.
I come, lastly, to the need for a diversion at Greenodd. The Minister will know that I also passed to his predecessor a petition signed by the people of this

village. I appreciate the technical difficulties of constructing a diversion across what is the upper estuary of the rivers Crake and Leven. I recognise that this is something of a major engineering project, but the need from the village point of view is truly desperate.
I wrote to the Minister's predecessor asking for safety barriers to be erected on the west side of the village street pending the diversion being completed. I quote from the reply, which indicates why the villagers are most concerned about the position. The reply, from the Parliamentary Secretary, in the last administration, says that
Unfortunately the length of footpath fronting the Ship Inn and associated properties is very narrow; the available width varies from a minimum of 3 ft. 6 in. to a maximum of 4 ft. 8 in. As guard-rails have to be set back at least 1 ft. 6 in. from the kerb you will readily appreciate that if a guard-rail were to be erected, pedestrians could not pass each other in opposing directions and mothers with prams would not be able to negotiate the narrowest remaining width.
He is saying that mothers with prams would be less than 18 in. from the carriageway on which these large lorries frequently pass on their way to Barrow and it is no wonder that the mothers complain that the vehicles brush past their sleeves and the slipstreams rock their prams. Their children are in a state of danger.
I do not believe that I have exaggerated the problem in Greenodd. I know that this is a major project and that design work is going ahead now, but I emphasise—and this is highlighted by the letter—that the situation is becoming increasingly intolerable for the people of the village. I hope that the project will be pressed forward with vigour.
I shall not conclude with any sententious remarks. We have here a practical problem of resources, money and skilled design teams. This is, however, the only road which services the Furness peninsula, Barrow-in-Furness, much of West Cumberland and much of the southern Lake District. Priority for these improvements ranks very high as an item of regional policy.

11.57 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I thank the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) for the


weight with which he has brought his case to the notice of the House. He is much more aware than I am of the problems of the roads he mentioned—problems which result from the important natural features of the area. Because of the difficulties over the suggestions for a link road, proposals for road building in the area must be treated with great care. I am glad that the hon. Member realises this point. I shall do my best to try to answer the points he raised. I have had the benefit of a map and I know part of the road, but I cannot honestly say that I know the entire road. It is impossible to know every road in the country.
There is a strong local feeling that improved road communications between the M6 and the Furness and Barrow areas are urgent, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for affording me this opportunity of reporting to the House on the current situation. He has emphasised the importance of the A.590 and the need for improvements. Indeed, the A590 is the only eastern-bound trunk road linking the Barrow and Furness areas with the rest of the country. Existing conditions are far from satisfactory. From the A6 at Levens Bridge to Barrow the A590 follows a tortuous route, with unsatisfactory alignment and steep gradients. In some areas the highway width reduces to less than 20 ft. The route is heavily trafficked all the year round with slow-moving heavy commercial vehicles serving the industry of Barrow, the Furness area and south-west Cumbria. In the summer months holiday traffic creates difficult and hazardous conditions, and long delays often result. I can assure the hon. Member that we recognise the importance of the A590 to the region and accept the need for improvements.
The hon. Gentleman will know that this Government, and especially the previous Labour Government, gave a great deal of thought to the whole question of the route about which he is speaking—particularly over the Furness area. He and others directly involved with this region will know that successive Governments have been concerned about road communications in the area.
Since 1965, eight separate improvement schemes to the A590 between Levens Bridge and Barrow have been completed.

In February 1970, proposals were published for a new link road across the Kent Estuary and Arnside to serve Barrow and the rest of the Furness area. However, following a public inquiry into the considerable weight of objections received, the then Secretary of State decided in December 1972 that the new road could cause damage to the environment and change the character of the area through which it passes. Accordingly, he decided that the proposals for the new link road should be withdrawn on the basis that the immediate needs of the Furness area would be met by improving the existing A590 trunk road.
Two schemes which could do most to replace the abandoned Barrow (Arnside) link road proposal are for a bypass of Lindale and the improvements between Meathop and Sampool Bridge.
The hon. Gentleman has asked me to deal specifically with the Lindale bypass. Draft proposals for the two-and-a-quarter miles dual carriageway Linday Bypass were published in October 1973. The current position is that a few objections from local landowners remain unresolved and accordingly the Department has arranged for a local public inquiry to be held in Grange-over-Sands, commencing on 7th May 1974. If the published proposals are eventually approved they will do much to relieve conditions locally, where Lindale Hill causes delays and serious frustrations to drivers and dangerous conditions for both the travelling public and pedestrians alike.
I know that many of the villagers are looking forward to the time when their main village street will once again be a peaceful, quiet and safe place. I am hopeful that this can be achieved by early 1977, as the scheme is already included in the firm programme, but I cannot prejudge the outcome of the public inquiry. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department will consider the points that have been raised about the road being ready to go ahead once the result of the inquiry, if it is favourable, is made public. However, there is sometimes a necessary statutory delay, as there is often the difficulty of resolving the problems of individual landowners and property owners.
Proposals for improvements between Meathop and Sampool Bridge have not


progressed as quickly as the Lindale Bypass scheme, as much work had already been done on this in connection with the Barrow (Arnside) link road proposal. However, I am hopeful that an announcement of the Department's intentions about the route improvements will be made later this year so that the public can make their views known before the Secretary of State decides on the form the proposals should take for publication under the statutory procedures.
In addition to those two schemes, proposals for eight other improvements to the A590 are now in hand. These are diversions at High Newton, Greenodd. I may have time to say a word about the railings and barriers that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, at Arrad Foot and Ulverston; improvements east of Newby Bridge and Haverthwaite, a by-pass at Dalton-in-Furness and widening south of Greenodd Station. In addition, we are giving consideration to the possibilty of an A6/A590 improvement between the Brettargh Holt interchange on the A6 and Causeway End on the A590. That would further improve communications to and from the Furness area via the M6 and the Kendal link which will be opened to traffic before the end of this year.
Advance construction works on a pre-filling contract on the Arrad Foot diversion started early this year, but a period of up to two years will be needed after completion to allow for settlement before any further construction work can be undertaken.
In the meantime, we aim to complete the necessary preparatory work so that the main works can be started as soon as the settlement period has expired. Construction work on the widening south of Greenodd Station commenced on 22nd of this month for completion by July next year. The widening will relieve local congestion by providing a new carriageway for traffic travelling west to Barrow leaving the existing road free for eastbound traffic. I am sure that the hon. Member is much more familiar with this than I am, but I have looked at the map and have some understanding of what is involved.
Preparatory work on the High Newton, Greenodd, Ulverston, East of Newby Bridge and Dalton-in-Furness schemes is well in hand. By the early summer of

next year I hope that announcements about the form that the route improvements will take on all these schemes will have been made public. This will, of course, then lead, after consideration of all views expressed, to the statutory publication stages. Although these schemes are small in terms of length and cost when compared to many others throughout the country, we are particularly conscious of the importance of consultations with the general public to safeguard the high environmental qualities of the area. We are aware of the difficult problem of everyone wanting roads, but always over the next fence or the next hill.
Proposals for the improvements at Haverthwaite have progressed beyond the consultation stage and it is our aim to publish a compulsory purchase order later this year.
I know that many others, including the local authorities in the area, are, like the hon. Member, anxious to see progress made on all these schemes. The importance to the area of the A590 improvements in helping to promote economic growth and facilitate the movement of visitors to and from the south Lake District is fully appreciated. There are, of course, other schemes with similar pressing claims for the limited funds available, but I can assure the hon. Member that determined efforts are being made to complete all the proposed schemes with the minimum of delay.
I think that the hon. Member will appreciate, from the detail that I have tried to give in making a progress report and the generally hopeful nature of my reply, that we are aware of the importance of this matter. Because the link road was planned but is not now going ahead it is all the more important that this very busy A590 should be brought up to a higher standard. I hope that, given all the problems faced in a high amenity area such as this, we shall be able to make genuine progress. I assure the hon. Member that there will be no undue delay in my Department.

Mr. Hall-Davis: The Minister has given a full and sympathetic reply to the points that I have raised. I could not expect him to go into detail on everything. Will he write to me on the Greenodd diversion, which I emphasised


strongly? This is a matter causing great local concern. It is fairly technical.

Mr. Carmichael: There are one or two technical matters, such as the Greenodd diversion and the question of the narrowness of roads and pavement width. These

require technical answers and I shall be only too pleased to look at them and write to the hon. Member.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.